Wirth,+Andrew

Judge philosophy: Updated pre-Novice State Debate 2014 Preclusions: Traverse City Central and Forest Hills Central Position: Director of Debate @ Traverse City Central High School

Hello, my name is Andrew Wirth. I debated for three years in high school at Forest Hills Central (2007-2010), and for four years at Wayne State University (2010-2014). In high school I debated mostly national circuit style debate, which means I'm good for speed, well as long as you speak clearly and make clear transitions between arguments. In college I debated during the paperless transition (I miss paper somedays) and experienced the great transition of traditional college to the inclusion and acceptance of performance and critical debate. I consider myself progressive, at lest in the state of Michigan, when it comes to the inclusion of the new styles (ie performance) and arguments (ie critical debate).

Top Level: 1) Personally, I’ve debated every style of debate; I’ve read everything from one advantage heg affs to performance. I think every different style of debate has a unique pedagogical benefit, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to adapt to what I think a good debate looks like. You do you and I'll come along for the ride. 2) Personally, I believe arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Any argument that has these three things is fair game for my ballot, regardless if it’s carded. 3) A dropped argument is a true argument, however, if it doesn’t have a claim, warrant, or an impact, and then I don’t think its true. I tend to give leeway to teams answering dropped arguments if the other team presents new warrants and impacts to those claims.

Framing questions: I default to most 2NR/2AR impact framing, and I think this is best established early on in the debate. Personally, impact framing is something that I highly value. Such as, is ontology a prior question to pragmatic policy action? Does global warming outweigh a quicker impact such as nuclear war or bio terrorism? Answering these questions in the final rebuttals is critical to winning the closest debates.

Framework/Topicality against teams that don't read a topical plan: - My final year of college debate, I decided to read affirmatives that did not endorse USFG action. Typically, many framework teams believe this makes me incredibility bias towards the affirmative. However, I find myself voting on framework more often than not because I think affirmatives have a poor interpretation or no interpretation at all starting in the 2AC. - I find framework to be more persuasive when it’s framed as critique of method because it directly clashes with the method of the 1AC. - My only aff side bias is that I tend to have a higher threshold for topical version of the aff. - If I ever hear a team/debater say the words, "wrong forum" or "leave policy debate", the highest amount of speaker points you will get from me is a 24. I understand that performance and identity teams may not fit within what you define as a debate argument, however, you must be civil and respectful. If you really think that they are that wrong for debate, then focus your time on winning the debate with substance.

Topicality: - I will first confess that I don't like judging T debates. At the high school level, debaters are often going way to fast for me and it's difficult to keep up T debates at full spreading speeds. Another issue I find is that high schoolers do not know how to transition between arguments, and that makes T debates only more difficult for me to judge. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- I like to vote for the interpretation that provides the best balance between limits, neg ground, and aff flexibility. I don’t understand why judges say they error aff on T if the aff has a terrible counter interpretation. However, I will say that I find it hard to believe that a negative team could have the best interpretation for debate if it excludes lifting the Cuban Embargo as a form of economic engagement.

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">Theory debates: <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- I tend to default on reject the argument not the team in most theory debates. I think it’s up to the 2NR/2AR to present a reason why I should vote down the other team. I think winning theory gives you access to strategic benefits in the debate, like leeway on perms for cheating counter plans. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- Condo is pretty sweet in my opinion, well at least in moderation. I find it difficult for a team to persuade me that one CP and K ,two CPs, or two Ks is impossible for the 2AC to handle. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- Consult/Delay/Process CP: This is my inner 2A coming out here, and if the counter plan results in the plan, then I’m pretty sick to my stomach. Unless the counter plans contain specific evidence about the affirmative. I don’t think they are a reason to reject the team, but justify abusive permutations. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- Perm theory: Reject the arg not the team because any other standard is silly. Even if the other team drops severance is a reason to reject the team, I think that doesn’t have a real warrant….

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">Counter Plans: <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- Going for counter plans bad theory is a non-starter for me and a debate will never win, save your breath and go for better substantive arguments. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- I love a good counter plan debate, however, I'm not really the best judge for CP debates that compete on immediacy or really intricate texts that makes the CP uniquely different from the plan. Based on the nature of debate tournaments, I have very little time to make a decision and I would ideally love an hour to sit down and hash out these kinds of debates.

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">Critiques: <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- Critiques are fine by me. I must confess, there might be a high chance or probability that I may have not read your literature, which means I find it very important for the negative to define particular terms. I mean, I know what epistemology, ontology, methodology, and so on are, and however, I have yet to read the entirety of feminism studies or various other disciplines. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- I know that Michigan debate is somewhat still ideological stuck in that policy debate is about debating policy and not a community college philosophy class. However, I don't find affirmative teams going framework arguments that are explicitly about excluding critiques in general because they are bad for policy education rather unpersuasive. Rather than making that a framework argument, I find it better when affirmative apply it as a solvency attack to the alternative. Like, global warming is real and we need to use the government to reduce green house gas emissions, and embracing the mindset of the alternative ignores the ways in which institutions sanction and create problems like global warming. Articulating a policy focus good to solving "x" problem is better than critiques are stupid because all we learn about is bio-power when I want to learn about the NOAA does stuff with the Ocean. In my opinion the secret to winning any debate, critical or policy, hinges on argument framing. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- I think the aff needs to defend the method of the 1AC, and these are often the most beautiful debates to watch and judge. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">- I think it’s hard to win the perm because the negative team will often always win a risk of a link, however, I think winning the impact and alternative level of the debate is the best way to go for winning my ballot.

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">Tag Teaming/Prompting: According to MIFA rules, the penalties for these violations are left up to me to decide. Under no circumstance will I drop a team that is found to be breaking these rules, I think that anyone who is unable to answer cross-x questions or needs to ask their partner for help during a speech hurts their credibility, thus hurts their speaker points. Honestly, I think you are wasting your speech time brining up these violations up. I'm already going to be giving them lower speaker points, so save your speech time for discussing substance in the debate.

<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">In conclusion: During my final year of college debate I had the epiphany to ditch grad school and dedicate my life to high school debate. This activity has changed my life for only the better. Debate means the world to me. With that being said, please respect your opponent and have fun. It’s the worst when I’m covering my eyes for the majority of a debate because it’s getting out of control. I tend to give higher speaker points to teams that make me laugh and/or remind me why I’ve decided to dedicate my life to this activity.