Bill Batterman is the I view myself as a critic of argument and view debate as a competitive academic game. I strive to make a least-interventionist decision while rewarding practices that I find educational and deterring those I do not.
There are two main things you should know:
My argument preferences are mostly unimportant.
I’d much rather have debaters go for arguments they are confident in than arguments they think I will like better. That said, I find critical arguments and case-specific strategies substantially more persuasive than politics disadvantages and substantive debates substantially more enjoyable than procedural ones. In the past, I have voted negative a lot more than I have voted affirmative in large part because I am receptive to a cornucopia of negative strategies and because affirmatives tend to forget about their case.
I place more emphasis on argument truthfulness and evidence quality than many other critics.
Put another way, just because you say it doesn’t make it true. I filter arguments through a plausibility test: can I confidently and coherently explain this argument back to you? I have yet to encounter a position that could not be explained well enough to pass this test — you simply need to articulate reasons and explain the justifications/warrants for your claim(s). Explanation of quality evidence almost always trumps superficial extensions of “more evidence” or “they dropped the number two, subpoint (a)” when I am in the back of the room.
Despite this, I try to resolve debates using the least intervention possible. If you implement your “vision” of the debate in the 2NR or 2AR and your opponents do not, I will almost certainly prefer your arguments. If both sides implement a vision or if neither side implements a vision, then the above caveats about truthfulness become more important.
This overview should be adequate for the vast majority of teams who will debate in front of me. If it’s not, however, or if you’re simply curious, the following goes into very great detail about my specific argument preferences. In addition, I am always available outside of tournaments to discuss any debates I have judged; just send me an email if you have a question or complaint.
The Long Version:
This is a lengthy continuation of the basic philosophy outlined above. Read at your own risk - this is written in a stream-of-conciousness fashion.
I have a lot of opinions, some more important than others, about “good debate” and “bad debate”. In almost all cases, these preferences derive from a fundamental view that quality researching and creative, intelligent strategizing are of primary importance to the activity. It doesn’t much matter what the content or genre of your argument is if you advance intellectually sound positions in an intelligent, thoughtful manner.
Meta-discussions of the means by which to evaluate this issue are encouraged. I don’t think the assertion that “topicality is a competition of interpretations” does anything to clarify the dispute. If you want to be a T hack, at least do it well and get high-tech with the decision calculus. In general, I find that evidenced interpretations (whether with contextual literature or grammatically-correct definitions) are far more persuasive than unevidenced, grammatically-incorrect, or arbitrary interpretations. I think finding out what the resolution means is important… even if your interpretation provides fantastic “ground,” I won’t find it persuasive if it is fundamentally at odds with the resolution’s plain meaning. In-round abuse concerns are generally more persuasive than “potential abuse” claims; “it’s not what you do, it’s what you justify” is a claim, not an argument. Pointing out the lack of competitiveness between an interpretation and a counter-interpretation is not a “permutation,” but it is a good argument. Outlining competing case lists is important, particularly when supported with in-depth analysis (or even better, evidence). I frown on teams that go for topicality as their “A” strategy against mainstream cases. That said, I am not viscerally repelled by topicality arguments and am generally receptive to teams who debate them well.
I think there are far too many theory debates and I frown upon teams whose “A” strategy is to complain about how they’ve been abused. If you must engage in theory debates, and I recognize that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, please slow down a bit and try to get off your blocks whenever possible. I actually enjoy high-tech theory debates and so if you do it well, I won’t be unhappy. If you don’t know what “high-tech” means, I guess the best way to explain it is like this: I’d rather hear “conditional PICs bad” or “multiple conditional alternatives bad” than “conditionality bad” or “PICs bad”. In other words, the more specific your theoretical objection, the more likely I will find it persuasive. In terms of the arguments themselves, I have some fairly strong predispositions in favor of conditionality and PICs, but you can persuade me otherwise. I also tend to err negative on critique theory. Specification arguments are generally not persuasive absent specified (pun intended), in-round abuse. Most theory arguments are reasons to discard an argument, not reasons to vote for or against a team. I don’t like cheap shots and will do everything I can to avoid voting on them. If you want me to vote on a theory argument, please do a lot of work explaining why such a punishment is necessary. Debates about how to resolve theory disputes are also encouraged (competing interpretations versus in-round abuse, offense/defense versus reasonability, etc.).
Discussions of competition are important and standards of evaluation (functional vs. textual) need to be resolved if the affirmative is going for a permutation. I think counterplans that solve the case via a different mechanism (and claim case-specific disads and turns as net-benefits) are a fantastic and underutilized strategy. I’m not the world’s biggest agent counterplan fan but if that’s your game, I’m well-versed in the literature. Conditionality and planinclusiveness are good. I tend to think that consultation counterplans are not competitive and theoretically questionable. In general, counterplans derived from the topic literature are more likely to be deemed legitimate than ones derived from your creative imaginations. Too many counterplan debates are a “race to the bottom” as both teams quickly latch on to abuse claims at the expense of substantive discussions of the competing policies.
Disadvantages, Advantages, & Case:
The risk of an impact is based on the credibility of the link(s) and internal link(s). This is more important in 90% of debates than the size of the impact(s). Uniqueness questions are important and relevant at every level of the disadvantage/advantage - if the link or impact is non-unique, the risk is substantially reduced (if not disproved entirely). I take defensive arguments very seriously - if there really is “no internal link,” and the only response is “there’s always a risk,” I will beg to differ. Links and link turns can both be true - evaluating their comparative likelihood and importance is better than reading more cards. Discussion of the terminal impact to your disadvantage/advantage is encouraged, particularly when accompanied by smart analytics (or, even better, evidence) clarifying the decision calculus. All things being equal, an unmitigated case advantage will outweigh a mitigated disadvantage. Case debates are encouraged and will be rewarded with high speaker points. Non-unique disadvantages read on the case are not “turns,” they are still non-unique disadvantages. I don’t like solvency dumps; take some prep time and structure your arguments so that they can be read on each of the relevant advantages (or otherwise separate out the arguments in an intelligent/intelligible fashion). Extending 1AC evidence requires more than a last name and a date. Having a qualified author who advocates your affirmative pleases me, as do debates about qualifications and the quality of competing evidence.
I don’t like politics disadvantages… most are patently absurd. If you rely on politics as your “A” strategy, I might not be your most preferred critic. I don’t have a problem with politics disadvantages per se - rather, my objection is with the positions in practice. On some weekends, stories are sensible and relevant and good debaters can be very persuasive. On other weekends, or at different times in the season, there just aren’t any reasonably-true politics scenarios. Unfortunately, most folks seem not to care about (or even notice) the difference. My biggest gripe is with link stories that defy explanation - why would Bush expend political capital pushing a policy that he clearly does not support?, for example. Keying in on the specifics of your scenario is critical - who is impacted by the plan?, why will they change their votes on other issues?, etc. are important questions. The more specific your link/internal link story, the better: “Senators Frist and McCain will backlash” is better than “Senate Republicans will backlash” is better than “Republicans will backlash” is better than “Congress will backlash”. I put a lot of weight on the quality of evidence when evaluating disputes (particularly over uniqueness claims). I tend to think that a oneor two-day difference in publication date is not as important as the qualifications of the authors quoted and the warrants they provide (although that can obviously change depending on the situation - if a recent event is important to the timeframe issue, make sure to point that out). I find elections disadvantages much more palatable than process disadvantages. Finally, if the above sounds harsh, it’s probably more bark than bite… I vote for politics disads all the time.
I’m something of a recovering critique hack… I like critique debates that make arguments relevant to the policymaking process and find them more interesting than most of the standard generic disads and counterplans. That said, I actually vote affirmative quite a bit more often than I would expect, usually on framework arguments and/or permutations (I think policy debate is a very good thing, and so criticisms of policy debate are antithetical to my predispositions). I don’t like debaters who rely on non-sensical assertions and jargon like “fiat is illusory” and “activate your judge space.” Different criticisms require different levels of sophistication in order to be persuasive - “state bad” is a lot less complicated than Lacan and debaters who recognize this tend to adapt their presentation to the content of the literature they are engaging. Impact discussions are very important - answer questions like “what does the ballot mean?”, “how should the activity be structured?”, “how do the case advantages interact with the critique impacts?”, and (most importantly) “why vote affirmative/negative?” I am a huge fan of analytic, paragraph-style link explanations and prefer them to canned, gigantic, card-filled overviews. Winning one well-explained link is better than winning five barely-explained links. I tend to think that alternatives do not require texts unless the negative makes arguments about how the “alternative solves the case.” If the impact to the criticism is methodological or ontological, I tend to think that complaining about the alternative text is a poor expenditure of affirmative cross-ex and speech time. I’m not sure if permutations are always theoretically legitimate - if they are just “tests of the link,” aren’t “no link” responses adequate? On the other hand, I don’t like 2NC/1NR theory dumps on permutations… in almost all cases, negatives would do better if they made more substantive responses (or even better, impact turned things like Pragmatism and Krishna/Coalitions) in addition to a smaller, more well-developed theoretical objection. I don’t think illegitimate permutation(s) are reasons to vote negative rather than simply reasons to discard the permutation(s)… proving otherwise is an uphill battle.
The end.