Campbell,+Benjamin

College: Southern Illinois University  High School: Parkview (MO)  PHILOSOPHY - updated 9/7

Debate how you want to debate, that'll ensure the best round. Yada, yada, yada.

__**Metadebate:**__ -Impact calc will win you the round. -The negative probably gets fiat -Rape is not good, nor is genocide. -I don't know what it means for the words of a counterplan to compete with the words of the plan. Maybe that makes me a neg hack. -"Even if" statements and "tiebreakers" can do nothing but help you. -I believe in line-by-line and preference it to embedded clash - RVIs are for people who can't debate. Snarling will be my response. -An argument is must have a claim and a warrant. -Comedy is enjoyable -Projects or performance is fine. So is framework.

__**Speed**__: Fast debates are good debates (generally). Go as fast as you like, just be slower on procedural debates and clear on taglines. I'll say clear if it's an issue. Clarity is important, blah blah blah. If you're debating someone who is not familiar with progressive debate, you don't have to speed. It just makes you look bad.

__**Paperless:**__ I put this high because it's a growing trend. I did it my senior year, and think it's great for the activity. No, fantastic for the activity. However, I hate that people are bad at paperless. It has become highlighted to me how horribly people do it. If you do paperless, be prepared to start the round as soon as possible - this is essential. Know your computer and be quick - don't lollygag. I'll be impressed if you do it well (which will probably translate to higher speaks).

Rules for paperless -3 computers -Prep stops once the flashdrive is removed from the computer -Have all cards you read available to the other team

__**Topicality/Theory/Procedurals:**__ Generally I find **l**imits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the 2AR, make sure the 1AR was large enough on it.

__**Critiques:**__ I'll vote on them, I ran them in high school, I run them now, but that does not necessarily mean I'll understand what you're specific argument is saying. Again, this is probably my bad for not understanding the lit as well as you do. Have specific links and highlight how your K would solve the aff or why the aff doesn't matter. Also be sure to highlight what the post-alternative world looks like in the overview of the 2NC or 1NR.

If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy choice), I think it needs to be the cornerstone of the 2AR strategy though, and have net benefits accordingly.

__**PICS:**__ Love them, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable.

Language and Word pics: Eh. They're alright, but you have to be able to win that language or reps matter, this is an all-or-nothing thing to me unless you convince me otherwise. I also think these should be contextual, generic pics are unconvincing (that doesn't mean I won't vote on them). Also, I don't think you should be able to pic out of things not in the plan text. Severance only happens from the plan, not the rest of the speech.

__**Case debate:**__ Fantastic, I love a good case debate. Really do. You'll get brownie (speaker) points if you're good on your case, or good on someone else's. I feel like most the time people undervalue this

__**Defense**__ "This is just defense" isn't a response. It's obvious it's defense, and if it's smart defense, you'll probably end up losing. Defense wins championships.

__**Politics:**__I loved the XO/Politics strategy when I debated. Time sensitive ones are sweet. Update your uniqueness. Specific scenarios (X person is key) are baller. I have a deep, underlying love for them, I hope you respect them.

__**Counterplans:**__ Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. The negative has fiat. I don't think that's unfair, sorry.

__**Perms:**__ They're checks of competition**.** If you think you're tricky, and it comes out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative.

__**Framework & Performance:**__ I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your project.

__**Speaks:**__ Be funny, give good impact calc, be clear on tags, have good ethos, be good at cross-x, and don't be a douche. Doing these things means you'll probably be rewarded.