Casey is the Head Coach at UGA. Originally from Holland, Michigan, he completed his B.A. in International Relations from Michigan State University in 2006. While at Michigan State, Casey earned two first round bids to the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and won the 2006 NDT. Casey recently completed his M.A. in Communications Studies at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC, where he coached the 2008 NDT champions. In addition to his coaching duties, he is a member of the faculty in the Department of Speech Communication.

Email: harrigan@uga.edu

CV here.

Judge Philosophy

Casey Harrigan Coach – UGA
New Philosophy: GSU 2008

-- Cliff-notes version:

1. Mostly a policy guy.

I do most of my research on topic-specific traditional policy arguments. It’s what I’m most familiar with; and, frankly, what I most prefer to read.

Some of you may have notice that I have a “little K thing”. Yep. Its not my preference, but I’ll certainly listen to your arguments (on the Aff or Neg). More on this later.

2. Hard work matters.

I work hard, I expect my team to work hard and be engaged, and I expect that of those that I judge. If you’re from a school with fewer financial/human resources, I get it – but I also get it when people use this or a variety of other excuses to mail it in.

In addition to the obvious direct benefits of being prepared, I will be making a conscious effort to reward hard working teams with higher speaker points.

3. “Critiques”

I hate this word. It means nothing. To me, there’s a clear line that intersects the categories: there are arguments that meet the framework, and there are arguments that don’t.

Arguments that meet the framework (Does it disprove the necessity for topical action? Is the advantage based on the outcome of the plan?) make sense. Nietzsche meets the framework. Nietzsche me.

Arguments that don’t meet the framework don’t make sense. This is totally unrelated to the question of whether they are fair, or “educational” (read: interesting to talk about). Simply, purely representational critiques do not present any reason to reject the plan. The Neg can be 100% correct – and, at most, it proves that a particular representation/justification should not be used as a reason to enact the plan.

4. Theory

For a little while, I’ve felt like I have been one of the most Neg-leaning judges in the pool. Conditionality has been a virtual non-option for the Aff in front of me. To “reject the team” for reading a PIC or international fiat has been unthinkable.

However, things are getting out of hand. I think others are noticing it too. The Neg is getting away with way too much. 2 counterplans is OK if it is a new Aff. If it isn’t, it seems excessive.

The problem isn’t so much that it’s unfair” – it’s that the depth of discussion in such “run-and-gun” debates is far too shallow. This defeats the purpose of hard work – a d-rule for me.

I’m not sure what the remedy is. I’ll probably try to reign in how much latitude that I’m willing to regularly afford to the Neg – and probably use the normal flow of speaker points to Neg teams that at least attempt a serious discussion of the Affirmative.

5. Truth Matters – At Least a Little

When I first started judging, I thought that I was a “tech-only” kind of guy. I found out that I’m not. Some things are just so overwhelming false that they can be defeated by even relatively poor arguments by the other team.

One instance: counterplans that clearly link to their net-benefit.

The Neg team will say “But there is a risk of a link”.

The usually do not:

a) Introduce a standard for evaluating the link that supercedes the logical “some amount is sufficient” understanding of DAs

or

b) Explain an impact that assumes only a risk of a link

I’m “offense/defense” – because it obviously makes sense – but sometimes Neg teams do such a poor job at winning “a risk” of their DA that the offense they win is overwhelmed by presumption. Or a “risk” of a solvency deficit, no matter how vanishing.

6. Last Note: Pre-Emptive “I Told You So”

Everyone has judging idiosyncrasies. You should know mine. I’ll try to keep this updated as they arise, or as I think of them.

a) Try-or-die. This happens a lot – particularly in K debates.

Imagine if:

-- The Aff wins that the alt fails 99% of the time – but concedes that the impact to the K certainly makes extinction inevitable and the Neg wins a sliver of a link

or

-- The Aff has an extinction inevitable Zizek advantage – and the Neg is cranking them on a DA and solvency – but doesn’t have harm defense.

In both above situations, one team is exceptionally vulnerable to a “try-or-die” approach. I’m amenable to it. If you’re not, be prepared and either don’t get yourself into that situation, or pre-empt it with another impact calculus.

b) Tricks

I’m sort of a debate nerd. I wrote my MA thesis on debate. I work on it all the time. I am weirdly interested in old debate theory and arguments.

Sometimes, teams win just because they are “in the know” – and the other team isn’t.

For example: “vote No” on politics. The Decision-maker. The “Realism Trick”. Stuff from the past – that isn’t particularly good – but for some psychological reason or another, gets additional cred because it draws upon debate memories.
There isn’t an easy remedy to this, other than: be aware of your past, know something about debate theory, and ask questions. Hey, you might even learn a thing or two along the way.