Richardson,+Dalton


 * Experience**: I'm currently in my fifth year of debate. I competed for one year in policy debate in high school, one year in NFA-LD debate and for four years in NPDA/NPTE debate. I debated for McLean HS in Texas and I currently compete for Texas Tech University.


 * Personal Note**: I am hearing impaired. I have worked hard in order to be able to understand the fastest speakers in the nation. That being said, you're best served speaking about 60-75% of your top speed in front of me. As the critic, I would like to be included in the debate and be able to understand what is being said.

I would classify myself as a games player. I view debate as a game of competing methods; whether that is policy vs policy, policy vs alternative, performance vs performance, or methodology vs methodology, that is for you to decide. I have no predispositions as to what debate is supposed to look like. In high school, I often read traditional affirmatives with big stick impacts; in college, I often find myself reading a variety of kritiks. I have defended the state, fiat, and fiated topical policy options as well as critiqued them. I believe that debate is what you want to make it; take this space and form it for yourself in a way that you find most applicable and beneficial. *Debate is not a space for racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist, etc. language. If you use this language, your speaker points will reflect it.*
 * General Overview**

My favorite argument is the K. I feel like the K has often allowed me to have the debate I want to have about a subject I am knowledgeable about. My most commonly read kritiks in the 2015-2016 season are queer theory, dialectical materialism, and ableism. I've had mixed success with Agamben and OOO, I'm starting to dabble in some Baudrillard but for the most part I hate hearing Ks that sound like they were cut from the pomo generator. I assure you, I both understand some academic and critical theory based buzzwords and believe the use of buzzwords is a cognizent act to make critical theory as unaccessible as possible. Something that should be taken into considereation when formulating strategy: just because the K is my favorite arguement does not mean I will give it more credit if it is deployed incorrectly. I would much rather hear a good politics disad or tradeoff disad than a K that doesn't interact with the aff or doesn't utilize the traps set in the 1NC to it's advantage.

NEW - I feel that debate recently has become a place of competing identity claims. While I do not think reading arguments about identity are bad, I do feel that debaters quite often frame these arguements as questions of the acceptance or rejection of debaters in round. This often makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable as I am often left deciding which debaters to legitamize at the end of the round via the ballot. I think in debates like these, I really do need a clear story about the role of the ballot and the way it interacts and intersects with your positions.


 * Case Debate**: I feel that case debate is highly underutilized in high school debate. I love impact turns. I also feel that debaters don't leverage their case enough against their opponents' arguments. Your case is 8 minutes of offense against the status quo. Use it more.


 * Topicality/Theory**: Theory can be fun. I have no qualms with how you use theory, whether it be what you're going for in the 2NR/2AR, or just to guarantee links to your disads. Absent another way to evaluate theory, I default to competing interpretations. On condo specifically - my threshold for condo is two conditional advocacies (i.e., one counterplan or a competing policy option and a kritik or a competing methodological/epistemological/ontological option). Any more and you increase the risk of me believing the aff's claims about in round education and the like.


 * Disads**: There isn't much for me to say about disads. I think they're great and I think that disads always turn case. Read how ever many you feel like.


 * Counterplans**: I'm not a fan of planked counterplans. I ask that you slow down on counterplan texts so that I can get as much of it down as possible. Simply extending solvency cards in the 2NR is nearly always a way to skirt impact calculus - if you are going for the CP, please tell me why the CP solves better than the aff, why the net benefit to the CP turns the aff, etc. I need solid warrant and impact comparison in the 2NR.


 * Kritiks**: As previously stated, I love the K. You don't have to have an alternative if you don't want one. I guarantee that I'm not as well read on Agamben, DnG, Spanos or Heidegger as you are. That being said, if you feel that you can explain it in a way a five-year-old would understand it, then go for it.

Just have the debates you want to have and enjoy your time in the activity. I promise you, it'll go by way too fast.