Erickson+Brooke

(LD paradigm is at the bottom) I am currently a Law School student at Marquette University. I have been coaching debate (primarily policy and LD) for the past 3 years. I debated policy in high school for 4 years, went to camp 3 summers, and I graduated in 2014. Rounds judged on the topic: 15+ Do what you're best at, I am just here to evaluate it. Tech > Truth (However, this does not mean if you somehow do a ~*~*~ great job~*~*~ defending racism, sexism, etc. good, that I will vote for you. I won't vote for blatant fuckery) Yes, tag team cross ex is fine
 * __Policy Paradigm __**

**__Thin ____gs that __** **__will__** earn **__you speaker__** **__ points ____: __**  Clarity, efficiency, calm sass, being witty, useful cross-exes. Clarity is more important than speed, I will say clearer twice before I stop flowing.

**__Things that will lose you speaker points: __**  Not doing the line by line, blippyness, being rude, being ableist/sexist/racist, etc., stealing prep*, clipping cards.

*Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing (I can tell if you’re flashing or pepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">start <span class="remarkable-pre-marked" style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">your speech time <span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">¯\_( <span style="color: #444444; font-family: &#39;MS Gothic&#39;; font-size: 10pt;">ツ <span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">)_/¯ <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> )

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Theory: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. I don’t have a particular predisposition on conditionality—it may be good, it may be bad, but it’s up to you to tell me. I don’t typically see theory as a reason to reject the team, unless I am explicitly told to from the first time the shell is read. If you read a 2 line condo shell in the 2ac, extend it for 5 seconds in the 1ar, and then make it the entirety of the 2ar, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Please impact your theory arguments; tell me why your time/strategy being skewed matters. Slow down on theory debates.

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Topicality: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">In-depth T debates can be really fun. However, I’m not too down with “T—material qualifications” or “T—substantially” debates, but I will <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">listen <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> to them and flow. I default to reasonability unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. To see if anyone actually fully reads my judge philosophy, I will give you .5 more speaks if you are the first person in the round to say “Go Eags”. Slow down on T debates.

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Counterplans: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> I’m a big fan. The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the US key? Also, permutations should be more than just “Do Both” at the end of the debate, I need to know how that would function and how it resolves both the aff and the net benefit. If the 2ac makes three perms, and the 1ar says the phrase “extend the perm”, I am not likely to give you very much leeway in the 2ar on the perm; be specific on what perm is being extended and explain it to me.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it.

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Disadvantages: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> Yes. Big fan. Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are extremely persuasive to me. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff. The politics disadvantage is cool but please don't force it, some weekends just aren't good weekends for the politics disad, y'all.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This also goes for the aff, tell me how the aff impacts relate to the disad. Offensive answers to disads are always good—I don’t really care how you do that.

__**Critical Debate**__ I have liberalized in debate quite a lot since I graduated. Looking back, I may have been more of a critical debater. However, I am still much more familiar with policy arguments. If you pref me PLEASE be aware of this; I want you to do what you're best at, but I also want you to have a fairly evaluated debate. If you want to read your off-the-wall K stuff, go for it, I will not be offended if you do not pref me. I need more explanation for heavy philosophy/critical debates.

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The K: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> I need more explanation on the K than I would typically need on policy arguments.These debates can be some of the most interesting/fun to watch. However, they can also be the most unbearable to sit through. I’m not likely to be very persuaded by your generic cap links—links should be specific to the aff. The key to K debates is EXPLANATION. I am familiar with most IR K’s; cap, security, gender, etc. Regardless, explanation of the link, <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">how the alternative solves <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">, and how the impact implicates the aff are crucial to my ballot. I’ve seen too many K debates that are just strings of K jargon; no one likes to listen to that. I was told at camp one year that if you could explain your argument without using any debate/ridiculous jargon, you would be in a very very good place—this is true. Don’t assume I’ve read your author--because I most likely haven't.

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">K affs: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> I really appreciate/prefer topic relevance. I don't need you to defend USfg implementation, but I think you can do a lot with the topic to say what you wanna say. I just think the topic is good :) I also really appreciate an advocacy statement if nothing else.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">In my experience, I did often go for framework. However, substantive, method framework debates are a lot more persuasive to me than rules, "you can't read that" framework. SLOW DOWN ON FRAMEWORK DEBATES PLZ.

**__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Case: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> Case debates are the best and they are very underappreciated. Regardless of the type of aff, I think the 1nc should have a pretty significant amount of case answers in it. The case debate should be a decent portion of the block.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Aff: Don’t forget you’ve read a 1ac; I’ve seen too many teams read the 1ac and never talk about it again—don’t do that. How the case interacts with the disad, K, etc. should be extrapolated throughout the debate. **__<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Miscellaneous but important notes: __** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">If you read the following arguments, I can guarantee there is someone much more qualified to judge your debate than I: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">--D&G <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">--Any type of “death good” argument <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">--Baudrillard <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I competed in two LD tournaments in high school: nat quals and nationals. I coached LD for 2 years. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I am familiar with how this form of debate works. Therefore, my policy paradigm largely applies but please remember your time constraints in this form of debate. I really dislike when the neg decides to read either 1) multiple off case positions or 2) a really in-depth K. Come on, you literally have 13 minutes. No one's education is being improved by you rushing through a K or a bunch of other shit for less than 13 minutes. It gets messy and shallow and quite frankly, it sucks. So, keep it simple, remember what form of debate you're in.
 * __<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">LD Paradigm __**

Have fun!!