Emerson,+Eric

Eric Emerson Name = eric emerson Affiliation = kinkaid school School Strikes = kinkaid school CXphilosophy = So you want to know how i judge debates by eric emerson quick note from zach rosenthal, kinkaid '13: we are sorry that emerson decided to create a new line after every 5 words

i am currently the debate coach at the kinkaid school in houston, texas. in the past, i have also actively served on the board of the houston urban debate league. at kinkaid, i coach LD, policy, and public forum. as a coach, i help my students research the various topics and i hope i have familiarity with each of the different topics.

i am pretty much open to most arguments, although i clearly prefer topic specific arguments that speak to the specific resolution that is currently being debated. if your arguments are generic to debate, rather than the specific topic, i will likely give you lower speaker points even if i end up voting for you.

this is especially true with topicality and kritiks. in terms-of topicality, i prefer specific examples of topical cases and realistic examples of cases that might unlimit the topic within a given interpretation and the ground that is lost under the affirmative's interpretation. i love good topicality debates, but my voting is dependent on specific examples and explanation of abuse for both the affirmative and the negative.

the same holds true with kritiks and performance type arguments (whatever that means). i will listen to anything, but i expect a high standard of link and impact assessment. i prefer specific reference to 1 ac evidence and claims with clear articulation as to how to evaluate. Please do not rely on bad debate buzzwords and lingo. i traditionally hold affirmatives to equal standards of proof in defending a particular assumption. i would prefer both sides to evaluate and compare both competing claims. i think that is the crux of my philosophy. i like case and disads. counterplans are debatable in all their many complex forms. for LD, i enjoy debates over standards and arguments that link back to those standards. the only real caveat that i have is that i do believe in negative presumption. i realize that there is no clear brightline for this, but in cases of tie or close issue resolution, i do give the status quo default status. finally, it’s important for you to know that i don’t have much of an attention span. If you could please make the debate entertaining and enjoyable, you’re more likely to keep that attention. If you see me wandering off, it’s not because i'm not following the round, it just means that i'm easily distracted. i hope this helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask…

e