In debates that take place between policy teams and project teams, one central sticking point tends to be over the merits of switch side debate in our activity. How do the goals of Project debating interact with the ideals and practices of what is commonly known as “switch side debate”?

This post is John Turner's response to Harrigan's theory of "judge-choice", presented in this post at Georgia Debate and discussed further by Bill Batterman at the 3NR.

Mowing down the worst of debate: first the consult CP, now the representation critique. Introducing "Judge Choice", your Aff's new best friend.

The criticism, or Kritik, has been much maligned by its detractors and furiously defended by its proponents. The scope of this essay is not to pick one side or another, but rather to provide an analysis of why the critique fails to persuade and identify some helpful tips for debaters that want to be able to go for the critique in front of a diverse array of judges.

What is "The Project"? Where does it come from? How can policy teams debate it? The answer to these and some of my thoughts on project debates in "More."

Kritik debate faces a significantly changed set of circumstances from those when I first began debating in college in 1999.   At the great risk of writing an old-curmudgeonly account of the decline of kritik debate I want to outline some of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we might be able to go.