Thompson,+Kevin

Kevin Thompson Rising Star HS 2011(Policy for 3 years, LD for 1) Texas Tech University (NPTE/NPDA debater)

At the meta-level: -I don't care what you do. I ran a lot of K's in high school and still do in college but I still like a good straight up strat. I also did performance and project debates too. Do whatever you are good at. -I was a 2A, 2N in high school but I am a 2A, 1N in college. I don't intervene except on very bad things like racism good, rape good, sexism good, ect. -Speed is fine, just try to be as clear as possible. If you are unclear, I will say clear twice. Otherwise I drop your speaks. Moreover, I find the average speaker points I give are 28. -I tend to err neg on theory when it comes to Advantage CPs, Word PICs, Consult CPs, and Agent CPs -I tend to err aff on theory when it comes to Delay CPs, Floating PICs, Multiple Plank CPs, and Process CPs -I tend to call for cards after rounds. However, I do believe the analysis is probably more important than evidence because I believe evidence is there to support good analysis. -Use Cross-ex effectively. Nothing irritates me more than a sloppy or stupid cross-ex. -I do not expect many of you to do it, but please do not mispronounce words or names like hegemony and Foucault. I find this realllllly annoying. -Any Pokemon references or funny jokes in the round might earn you more speaks.

Kritiks- I do not care if you run them. However, explain the argument. Moreover, I do not think you have to win the alt in order to win the kritik, especially if there is a lot of offense elsewhere in the kritik. Moreover, I find "reject the aff" alts are problematic too because your author probably doesn't call for that. I also find good permutation debates easy for the aff to win on a bad alt. Good role of the ballot arguments make me happy too.

Counterplans- I find few things more strategic than a really good PIC. I don’t care which CP you want to read, but please read the text slowly or twice. If you were curious, I answered counterplans via the POST acronym- perm, offense, solvency, theory.

DAs- Who doesn’t like these? I think the thought behind politics are silly, but I have ran them and voted for them. I don’t really like “fiat solves the link” arguments but if the argument is well warranted and smart, I might vote for it.

Topicality- I think T debates can be interesting. I hated running T in high school but it is useful in the neg or aff toolbox. I default to competing interpretations so win some offense and defense on the standards debate if you are going for this. Tell me how to evaluate reasonability too. Saying “if we are reasonably topical, don’t vote on T” isn’t good enough. I think RVIs are almost always dumb. Also, if you articulate proven in round abuse and the aff is being nonsensical, by all means go for T. Just know it isn’t my favorite thing to vote on.

Theory- I am easily persuaded either way on most theoretical issues. Are PICs good or bad (take into account what I said at the top of this wiki)? Is conditionality good or bad? I tend to think condo is okay and so are most PICs if they are not too dirty. Often I hear too much jargon in theory debates and not enough warrants, so articulate your offense and defense and why they are important. Please don’t go for theory as a cheap shot.