Vint,+Kyle

Cedar Rapids Washington 06' Iowa 10' Four years policy debate in high-school. Four years policy debate in college. Current graduate assistant at Baylor.


 * __Policy Philosophy:__**

Critiques: I am not very well read on a lot of critique literature. That being said it does not mean that I won't vote on critiques or understand the argument that you are making. For me good K debates focus on link debates with specific examples. You don't need an alternative. If you win the way you presented your argument is in itself a good idea and the way the aff presented theirs is bad, then you will probably win the debate.

Disads: They are good, and I enjoy them. The link and internal link are the essential part of the debate. It is more important to make a coherent story for why your disad is true than to proliferate a bunch of two card link stories in the negative block. Impact calculus shouldnt just be magnitude, timeframe, and probability with a one sentence blip after each. It should be a short story why your impact claim is more preferable and how it specifically interacts with the affirmative.

Counterplans: I also enjoy them. Agent counterplans are fine and dandy but it is more fun to judge a more thought out counterplan that interacts with the specifics of the aff. Counterplans should be competitive. I think that Consult counterplans, normal means pics, etc. are probably not competitive, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Topicallity- I think topicallity debates are generally underdeveloped and miss the boat on impact stories. In round abuse or ridiculous examples of what the aff justifies are far less persuasive then an explanation about good topic education that is lost by the affs interpretation. T is probably a debate of competiting interpretations, but the aff can win that it isn't.

Theory: I am probably a little neg biased on theory questions. I also view theory debates as a question of competing interpretations (which side is best for overall debate). If you are going for theory it needs to be a well developed and warranted argument, not simply a game of who has dropped more. Theory arguments like multiple permutations bad may end careers at the toc but are not persuasive and can be beat by one affirmative argument (they are a test of competition and not a voting issue). ASPEC and OSPEC are cool (really cool) with me, and are probably a good time trade-off for the negative.

Do what you want, have fun, run what you are comfortable with. If you are going to be a prick, at least be a funny one so it doesn't look as bad.


 * __LD Philosophy:__**

Speed: I did four years of policy debate in high school and now am a sophomore NDT debater at the University of Iowa, I will be fine with however fast you would like to go. That being said, do not feel obligated to go fast even if the person you are debating does. A few smart, well thought out arguments will always get you farther then a ton of quick unwarranted arguments. Also, do not push yourself, only go as fast as you can without sacrificing clarity.

Standards/Value/Criterion Debate: I recognize that these are conventions of LD debate, therefore if you want to frame the debate in terms of a value criterion I will evaluate it as such. This does not mean that you have to frame the debate in that way. If you can prove that affirming the resolution is good outside of a specific value, than you will win. When you are negative you don't have to provide counter standards. If you win that the aff violates their standard or is net worse than you will win the debate. IE, if their standard is human rights and you win that the affirmative would result in a genocide, I don't really think that you need to provide a different standard (so long as you demonstrate how that relates to human rights (it seems kind of obvious to me)). I find that simply stating "the other team dropped my standard" is problematic. Just because they don't directly respond to yours does not mean that they aren't addressing it or answering it internally. If they do drop it, make warranted arguments as to why that should influence my decision or why it matters.

T: Make topicality arguments. Do not just frame them in terms of how they "abused" you. I tend to think of T debates as a debate of competing interpretations. What does their interpretation mean in terms of topical advocacies, topic research, overall predictability, etc. I am fully willing to listen to reasonability arguments so long as you give me reasons why I should value that over competing interpretations.

Critiques: If you run a critique be sure to make the debate as contextual as possible. I would much prefer to hear how the aff's rhetoric, advocacy, plan, is a specific example of whatever you are critiquing then to hear "the aff uses the state and that is bad because of x". Explain your arguments as much as possible, giving examples, instead of just extending the tags.

Counterplans: I am a big fan of the CP and I think it is an underutilized tool in LD. If you have an alternative policy, neg case, cp, whatever that solves the aff and avoids a disadvantage you should run it. I also think that the permutation is an underutilized tool in LD debate. I am willing to evaluate counterplans in terms of textual competition or functional competition, just win why your interpretation is best.

Theory: "They ran a critique and that is bad" is not a theory argument. It can be a framework argument. Reasons why the way they view debate is bad for education, predictability, ground, etc. need to be clearly articulated and warranted. I don't think that it should just be a "critiques are bad for the activity. Similarly, "They read multiple off case arguments and that is bad" is also not a theory argument. I do think that they read multiple off case arguments which skew my 1ar ground for x reason is a legitimate argument. In other words, don't assume that I will simply agree that whatever the other team is doing is abusive, make arguments as to why it is.