Wirth,+Andy

Wirth, Andrew

Judge philosophy: Updated pre-Glenbrooks 2014 Preclusions: Traverse City 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, and for four years at Wayne State University.

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: 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.

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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Theory debates: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Counter Plans:

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Critiques: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In conclusion: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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.