Isaac West

Kansas State University

# of rounds on topic : 25

# of years judging : 1

Cases: Since I don’t cut cards anymore, I thought that I should at least be honest with you about my knowledge/exposure of each country. I have only judged Iran once and know nothing about that country. If you want to debate about pipelines or something like that, you will need to spend some time providing a context for these arguments. I know the most about Cuba and Syria and feel comfortable in a round that involves high tech strategies by both sides. North Korea and Iraq are both countries where I understand the bigger pictures but have not kept up with latest strategies on them. You will have to explain things like modifications to oil-for-food and what exactly the status quo for Korea is.

Theory debates: I can’t flow them unless there are warrants/explanations of your arguments. I will try to keep up with them, but, I think that these debates could be a little slower.

Topicality: I enjoy this argument if it is well-developed. I primarily see topicality as a check against abusive plans that prevent the negative from counterplanning. If you plan to go for this argument, I would suggest that you slow down and keep the structure very clear. Affirmatives waste valuable time when they answer topicality with RVIs.

Counterplans: Of course, the arguments on the flow will determine the debate. However, if neither team challenges these labels, this is how I interpret the following concepts:

Conditionality/Dispositionality—Teams should clarify what each side interprets this to mean. If left to my own decision, I understand conditionality to mean that the negative can rid themselves of the counterplan and its burdens at any time in the debate. Dispositionality, for me, means that the negative allows the affirmative the choice of sticking the negative with the counterplan as long as the affirmative does not perm the counterplan. If you think that these terms encompass some other concept, then you should be clear about that.

Permutations: They should include the full text of the plan and the counterplan. Otherwise, they do not truly test the competition of the plan versus the counterplan. You should write them out not only to be fair to the negative but also so that I can read it after the round.

PICs: I have always thought that they are legitimate arguments for the negative. Negatives should force the affirmative to commit to what their plan does/does not do in CX. If you ask the affirmative if their plan lifts a certain sanction, they should answer you. If they won’t, run topicality. I know that this debate can get complex quickly so please keep it clear.

Kritiks/critical arguments/whateveryouwanttocallit: Despite what people might tell you, I actually do enjoy these arguments. They are much closer to my own academic research interests than my own debating style might have suggested. Here are my caveats about these arguments: 1) They should link.....and by this I mean that just because Congress actually passes the plan does not mean that all criticisms of government now link to the affirmative. 2) Yes, fiat is illusory. I learned that in 10^th grade after my first tournament. The affirmative/negative links because of their plan/advocacy and it only seems fair that they should be able to weigh their advantages/advocacy. Translation: weigh the impacts. 3) They aren’t voting issues just because the negative said so. Teams should challenge this assumption.