Courtman,+Ethan

Caddo Magnet High School 2016 Trinity University (current)

- Do what you do best, and if you win it, I'll vote for you. - I was a 2N almost all of high school and went for everything. Junior and Senior year, I think 90% of my 2NRs were composed of the politics DA, "cheating" CPs, one-off Ks, or impact turns. - I like techy debates with lots of framing, impact analysis, and comparison. Tech over truth. Concessions are not true unless you extend a warrant to your argument. - I have a terrible poker face, especially when something doesn't make sense to me - I think debate is an educational game, and that game should be based around having fun. If you don't have fun when you debate, then why the hell do it? - Please don't take yourselves too seriously; the end-all be-all of your existence is not determined by a high school debate round. You should debate to the best of your ability, but please, goof around some, make jokes, read crazy arguments.
 * __General__**

__**Stuff you should do**__ - Make arguments (which is a claim, warrant, and impact) - Clash with your opponents' arguments (embedded is fine, but when in doubt, just stick to line-by-line) - Know what you're talking about - Point out logical flaws in your opponents' arguments - Make impact comparisons/Frame the round - Disclose your aff (unless it has never been broken) and past 2NRs - Make puns - Make accurate jokes about former and current Caddo debaters

__**Stuff you shouldn't do**__ - Call me judge. Seriously, my name is Ethan. If every argument you make starts with, "Judge ...," I'm going to hate you. - Tell me to call for a card 40,000 times - Be super salty during all of cross-ex. A smart ass answer can be strategic, but if that's your general demeanor you should tone it down - Be racist/sexist/generally offensive - Steal Prep. I don't count flashing/emailing as prep unless you take a ridiculously long amount of time, but during this time, no one else should be prepping. If this happens in a novice round, I will just tell you to stop. In a normal round, I may or may not say something but your speaks are definitely getting docked. - Cheat (clip cards/lie about arguments made/etc.). If this happens during a novice round and I don't think there was malicious intent, then I will try to make it an educational opportunity. In a normal round, I will ignore arguments if you lie about them to your opponent in cross-ex (i.e. if you read condo and then tell your opponent you didn't, I'm not going to evaluate condo). If you clip and there is proof, then the round ends, you lose, and get the lowest possible speaker points allowed.

__**Some specific stuff**__

__Case:__ - In my opinion, negative teams often don't invest enough time in case debates. A good case debate can destroy any aff if you invest enough time into it. However, a good case debate is not just reading your generic impact defense blocks. While impact defense should be part of a case debate, I think internal link defense arguments are generally more compelling. - Find logical holes in the aff (which almost always exist). - Impact turns were probably my favorite thing to go for (anything from heg bad/dedev to extinction good) so I really appreciate them. - If you're aff against a K, please don't forget you have an aff

__Topicality:__ - Disclaimer: not a great judge for T. Nothing against the argument, but I was never a high level T debater so I feel like there are a lot of intricacies to the argument that I don't understand. Obviously I will still vote for it - That being said, I really enjoy a well executed T debate - Make sure you tell me why it matters, not just that the aff is unfair.

__Framework__: I never went for framework much as a 2N because I found these rounds somewhat repetitive. But if you want to run 1-off framework, then go for it, just make sure your impact work is super explicit.

__Disadvantages:__ - Impact analysis and turns-case arguments win these debates - Specific links are always the best - Please don't waste time explaining why your extinction impact outweighs your opponents' extinction impact on magnitude - I'll probably get frustrated if the internal link chain is ludicrous, and affirmative teams can get a lot of mileage by pointing these out

__Counterplans:__ - Read whateve - I loved cheating counterplans as a 2N, but if it's abusive, you obviously should be able to defend it/have a decent solvency advocate - I really enjoy smart, well researched PICs that punish lazy/ridiculously broad affs. - Agent counterplans are usually legit.

__Kritiks:__ - Any K you want to read is fine, but specific Ks are usually better - Contextualize your links to the aff - Explain your tricky K tricks - The negative should ideally win some version of framework or a large portion of the case debate __- **Long overviews as a substitute for line-by-line make me sad**__ (this applies to all arguments, not just Ks). Its fine to read an overview, but try an keep it less than 1:30

__Kritikal Affs:__ Feel free to run them. I think they should have at least some connection to the topic, although I'm not really sure what defines "some connection."

__General Theory Stuff:__ - Prove the in-round abuse or else it's just a reason to reject the argument. - Please don't make me vote on you dropping conditionality - 2 conditional worlds are probably fine but I can be convinced otherwise - Please slow down in these debates and signpost so i can flow them instead of just spreading through your theory blocks - All theory is up for debate