Demming,+Brenden

Overview: A lot of times individuals will post there philosophies without giving an indication as to their background. So, the following is my background in terms of debate experience. I competed on the Austin UIL and TFA circuit throughout high school. I currently am the assistant debate coach for Crandall High school. I debated for University of North Texas for a year. The reason I left was because I had to go get an job, but am back coaching again.

Overview: I think that the debate should come down to some type of comparison in offense/defense. I feel as if this the best way the mechanize the debate in terms of my ballot. Going for straight defensive arguments, like the "STOCK" issues, is probably not going to be a justification to vote for you. However, if defensive arguments in conjunction with offensive arguments as listed below is probably going to warrant my ballot. However, with that you need to be doing some type of impact calculus. I think this is really crucial because it sets up the comparison of the scenarios as to why i should vote for you. I flow the round on paper, but don't think that I am not listening.

Argument specific Topicality: From a 1 to a 10 I am probably about a 5, or as I would indicate middle line. I think that competing interpretations is where I lie though, but that's not to say reason-ability claims aren't going to be listened to. If you don't tell me how to default, well then I am going to go my preferred route of competing interpretations. The impact level of T is very underutilized. What I mean by that is teams won't engage in the fairness and education debate. Ultimately I think that one side has a better internal link to fairness, and reciprocally the other has a better internal link to education. I think that making claims that things like conditionality or some other type of theory/pre-fiat argument comes before Topicality is pretty reasonable. My only inclination to the previous statements would be to warrant your arguments. If you don't tell me how to default I am going to default competing interpretations. If you're going for some type of potential abuse story, that's great; there needs to be good warrants to why potential abuse should be evaluated, and or specifically in the context of the round.

Framework: I think ultimately I really do enjoy a good framework debate. I don't understand the functionality of resonability in this debate, but if you make those claims then so be it; who am I to say otherwise. I'm not really sure what else to say here...

Theory: Competing interpretation is pretty much where I lie on all other theory arguments. I think that the affirmative has to make a really good in round abuse story claim for me to vote on theory. I usually err on the side of the negative for reasons implied as above. The only thing that I can really think that would be an exception would be condo. Do I think that the negative should be able to get the status quo and a policy option? Yes. Do I think that the negative should be able to get two different advocacy statements? Maybe. The thing I am getting to is contradicting condition/dispositional worlds. I think that's not reciprocal, although I think that the negative getting a dispositional and conditional advocacy solves all of condos offense as well. If there is some other type of theory argument you want me to vote on, again by all means.

Disads: Yeah. Not a lot to say. I love politics. I like the "disad turns case" debate. If you ONLY go for a disad I think you need to be winning two of the three following arguments. 1. Disad outweighs the case 2. Disad turns the case 3. Disad has a better way of solving the 1AC advantages.

Counterplans: Once again for sure; I think they're highly strategic. Functional competition is cool, but textual competition can also be sweet. PIC's are cool. Delay counterplans are ehh, but that's up for you guys to decide. I think for you to win the counterplan debate you need to be winning either the CP is just inherently mutually exclusive for the aff, or some type of net benefit the affirmative doesn't have access to.

Kritiks: For sure. I read a particular author all the time my senior year of high school, and understand the strategic nature. I think that for you to win the K you either need to be winning a K outweighs the case, the aff doesn't have access to fiat and is not real, an role of the ballot argument, and/or K turns the case. I think that I need some type of overview for the criticism in case I am not familiar with the author you are reading. I think that the alt debate is one that is soley under warranted in this debate. I don't care what type of alt you have, but make sure you explain the function of it post ballot signing. Also some type of explanation as to how you solve your own linear disad. Floating PIK's are usually pretty bad, but that's up for you guys to debate.

Permutations: This is becoming very messy in a lot of different ways. Just saying "perm do both" doesn't do a whole lot for my ballot. What do those three words mean? What are you perming? What is it like in the world of the permutation? I think you need to win some type of net benefit for the permutation. Some judges require a perm text, some do not. I don't have a preference either way. What I will say is that if the permutation is constantly changing than I'm probably more inclined to not vote on it or evaluate it because of the changing nature of the permutation.

Performance: I don't have a lot of expertise dealing with this. Give me a role of the ballot and I'm good. You do you, and I'll flow and listen.

Stylistic things New in the 2: I really don't like it. On a scale of 1 to 10 I a a 7, where as 10 being don't do it. I will give 1AR lenience to answers against new in the 2, and am even willing to vote on sandbagging. Sandbagging is all based on what is actually inside the 2. If it's just straight case, I most likely will.

Clipping cards: This is defined as "intentionally skipping over the already underlined and or boded text you are reading from your card". If you DO NOT say "cut the card here" and just magically assume you read the whole card, I will vote you down and give you the lowest possible speaker points. This is cheating. You are making me assume you read the whole card. This is ESPECIALLY problematic when I call for the evidence, and I evaluate all of it, but you only read certain warrants.

Speed: do whatever style you want.