Dettmer,+Bailey

I debated for Anderson for my three years of high school and also did some policy. I’m currently teaching policy at Anderson. I am super into the value of debate as real world education and am super open to most arguments.

I’ll evaluate the debate through whoever justifies a better case under the winning weighing mechanism in the round. Nice and simple. I like seeing the big picture in the last two speeches. Write my ballot for me.

Summary of my paradigm: Don’t be mean please. Run whatever you want and I’ll stay with you on the flow. As long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and impact, I’ll see your argument as valid. (Back to novice debate, I know.) Don’t read things you don’t understand. and PLEASE WEIGH! I need to know what comes first! If no args are made this is my default: meta theory > t/theory > the k > substance

Speed: Go as fast as you’d like. Just make sure your opponent is comfortable with speed as well. I will say clear once, then stop flowing if you continue to be unclear.

Kritiks: Be sure you know what you’re talking about. I was mainly a critical debater while in high school, so I am not opposed to any critical position. But, make sure you know your literature. Don't assume I'm familiar with the literature you're reading. I still expect a rigorous explanation of your position in the round.

Nontopical Positions: Run them, but be sure you’re ready to defend it. I believe debate is a space that should be open to positions in and out of the resolution. I will absolutely vote against a nontopical position if you lose topicality or any other relevant argument that justifies your loss of the ballot.

CPs/DAs/Plans: I’m totally comfortable with these positions and encourage you to go for them. Please weigh. I don’t know what to do with 5 extinction impacts. In a world where you engage in a LARP debate and then give 0 weighing arguments, you’ll see your speaks decrease.

Theory: If theory is your main strat don't pref me very high. I value substance much more. I'm not the judge you want in the back of the room when you're trying to go for theory, because these types of positions are not ones I am the most comfortable with. I’ll vote on any shell, but my threshold for frivolous theory is pretty low. This just means that if your opponent goes hard on reasonability on a shell that’s not pointing out some obvious abuse, I’ll be likely to vote against the shell. But, I am not one to judge what, “frivolous,” is so I’ll never automatically down you for reading a shell. If no reasonability/competing interps arguments are made, I’ll default to competing interps.

Phil: I enjoy a dense framework debate. Just don’t make a fool out of yourself trying to defend a position you don’t understand.

Tricks: I think these types of debate have a unique source of education, like Ks, but basically the opposite. I think it takes real skill to engage in a theory debate around tricky positions. But, these debates don’t happen if you are debating a novice or someone who obviously will not know what to do. I’ll still vote on the argument, but you’ll get lower speaks if you’re just trying to confuse your opponent. With that said, again, you probably don't want me as your judge is this is your A strat because these types of positions are not ones I am the most comfortable with.

Please be nice! You will get low speaks if you are being an obvious jerk!

Also: please don’t try to make an argument that explicitly outlines that some identities as more valuable than others aka don’t justify white supremacy. :^)