Yost,+Michael

michaelDOTyostATgmailDOTcom
 * Michael Yost**


 * Experience**: I debated in high school at Jenks, and in college at both the University of Oklahoma and the University of Central Oklahoma (NDT/CEDA). Before grad school, I was an assistant debate coach at UCO. I am now a PhD student in economics at Florida State University.


 * Overview**: I like good debates, whatever form those may take. Do what you do best, and I will work hard to set aside my prior assumptions. I will evaluate the debate I am given—whatever its content—to the best of my ability.

Ultimately, my strongest predisposition is towards an open and accessible debate for all. I take exclusionary language and behavior quite seriously. Please work to ensure that your behavior does not alienate or exclude anyone in the round.


 * Evidence**: My bias is towards reading less, rather than more, evidence after debates. Unless there is significant disagreement regarding the content of particular cards, I will defer to the interpretation advanced in your speeches. Debate is foremost a communicative activity, and so I think it is important to prioritize that. That does not mean you should read bad cards, just that, ceteris paribus, I default to tech over truth. However, I often read evidence after I have made my decision so I can offer feedback for advancing one’s arguments more effectively.


 * Theory**: I have a high threshold for voting for “obviously cheating” CPs, which includes, but is not limited to, word PICs, condition(s), delay, and consult CPs, and the like. I tend to believe that CPs should demonstrate an explicit opportunity cost to doing the plan, and these sorts of CPs often fail to do that, for various different reasons. In these cases, merely extending theory consistently and persuasively is sufficient reason to reject the CP for me.


 * Conditionality**: is good. Flatly contradictory arguments, however, are probably not. I find it hard to justify voting for a K that links to the neg. So, if you are reading the security K, for example, you probably should not be reading war impacts on a different flow.


 * Framework**: In these debates, teams should offer a model of debate and defend it. I find the teams—on either side—that succeed in these debates are the ones that best describe what debate is and can do. “What purpose does debate have?” is a question that both teams debating framework should answer. Is debate an activity to hone our analyses of policy? Is it a space to experiment and try new ideas? Or is it just a game? And what benefits can any of these visions for debate offer for those who disagree with your vision? Framework serves to negotiate these considerations, and to that extent, is necessary.

In general, the more specific and limited the framework argument, the better you will fare. The more general and insular your framework argument, the less likely I am to be persuaded. I do not enter the debate with the assumption that the only worthwhile discussion to be had is one that centers on government policy. However, I understand the desire to impose some sort of limit on debate, particularly in cases where the affirmative explicitly rejects topical discussion. Strategically, picking the framework interpretation that includes as many of the aff’s benefits as possible while not jettisoning the benefits of research and preparation is the option which will serve you best in front of me.


 * “The K**”: yes, I am fine with it.


 * “Performance”**:all of debate is a performance, even the parts where you are not giving a speech. As long as the form of your argument is accessible to all participants, I find little reason to reject it. If reading poetry or playing music is how you want to make arguments, I will raise little fuss. This cuts both ways, however—I am unpersuaded that speaking quickly or reading evidence is on-face exclusionary.


 * Prep time**: I usually do not take prep time for saving and transmitting evidence, whether by USB drive or email chain, but this predisposition is subject to change during any given debate.