Titcher,+Morgan

I am currently an Assistant Debate Coach at MBA, prior to this year I was an Assistant Coach at Juan Diego for two years. I have judged a LOT (60+ as of Glenbrooks) debates on this topic so far from the Michigan Camp, Greenhill, etc. I debated for three years at Notre Dame and regularly broke and received speaker awards at national tournaments and twice qualified to the TOC. I was in Octas or better of MBA, Glenbrooks, Emory, USC, Blake, Meadows, etc. and in Finals of Golden Desert.

TL;DR: Do whatever you want, don't be offensive, but DEFEND YOUR POSITION. I love a great in depth debate whatever the topic. I have no ideological constraints on what you should/should not read but if you don't justify it you will most likely lose. If you read a heg aff vs. the K make sure to defend your epistemology/empiricism etc., if you read a critical aff/performance aff make sure to impact turn their model of debate and have a clear alternative model that is superior.

__General:__ In high school I went for a very wide variety of arguments from very policy/straight up strategies to very far out critical strategies. On the military topic I spend a lot of time alternating from CP/DA debate and the Security K which was my K of choice that year. This however does not mean that I'm overeager to vote on it. If you execute it poorly I will know and will punish you the same way I would if you read a poorly constructed politics DA. I have no 'favorite arguments' that will factor in so heavily so as to make me more prone to vote for them. I'm quite content judging a in a politics DA with Heg impact or judging a debate about de-prioritizing extinction impacts in favor of more real world ones. Basically what I'm saying is pick what you like best and do a good job of defending it, don't worry about my argument preferences, I will do my best to come into each debate with fresh ears.

I'm a big advocate of comparative impact analysis and what I mean by that is explaining your impacts not just in relation to the affirmatives but reasons for why your arguments turn their impacts or come first or any other consideration you think gives me a reason to vote for you. At the end of the day the surest way to get my ballot is to do a better job explaining why I should vote for you compared to the reasons the other team is giving me. Don't assume if you just blurt it all out with no coherent story I'll put together the pieces for you. That being said I'll do my best to do that, but you really should be taking that out of my hands and forcing me to see it how you see it if you want to win. The team that does the better job of framing the debate usually wins.

I'm comfortable with any arguments you want to make. This doesn't mean if you have a crazy but poorly constructed argument now is the time to whip it out, because my primary concern is QUALITY of argument, but what it does mean is I am NOT AVERSE to hearing anything in particular no matter how non-mainstream it is.

Another BIG pet peeve of mine is that too often people make arguments without impacting them. This is not a reason to vote for you. Imagine if you just said "The neg read their CP condo, that's bad" clearly I would not vote on that because it is neither explained or impacted. If you want to win on an argument make sure to explain why it's a reason to vote for you. I will not vote on a cheap-shot that is POORLY EXPLAINED, however if well explained all is fair and I'm not averse to voting on cheap-shots if well impacted.

__Speaker Points:__ I use speaker points to encourage good debate behavior. Certain things really make a difference to me. I think I give very fair points, my scale ranges from 27.5-29.5 or so with 27.5 or lower being subpar with lots of room for improvement and 29.5 being a technically excellent, persuasive, well explained and overall great speech. 1. Keep a very clean/organized debate - keep your arguments modular, don't do the link/uniqueness debate on five different areas and you will be rewarded. 2. Technical ability - Keeping a great line by line, not dropping arguments, impacting all of your arguments and having a complete strategy for this 3. Persuasiveness/Ethos - Having a strong presence, persuasive speech, passionate all will improve your points as long as backed up by your warrants. 4. In Depth Knowledge - Having a precise and deep well of knowledge is something I definitely appreciate and reward with speaker points. 5. Quote the opposite sides evidence - This is a BIG thing for me, it shows you're willing to do work, comparative analysis and helps you deconstruct their argument better. If you do this effectively you will be rewarded and it will help you in the debate.

__Impact Turns:__ I love these debates, I went for these a lot and love a well developed impact turn debate. That means COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS! If you neglect to discuss you're impacts in relation to your opponents or do a worse job than your opponents YOU WILL LOSE. These are some of my favorite debates if done well and least favorite if executed poorly. In general I default offense defense paradigm but can be convinced otherwise but that's on you, so it would be helpful to have defense on all their impacts you aren't directly turning.

__Topicality:__ These debates are ok, I rather like a very precise, technical, and well executed T debate but in general I find them not debated very well and as a consequence they are not usually my favorite. I'm open to reasonability or competing interpretations, in general I default to offense defense paradigm except for extremely contrived scenarios but I can be convinced otherwise easily. I'm also open to arguments that others are usually not such as your K aff O/W topicality but you need to explain these very well, again typically these are poorly executed. I've judged a very large amount of debates on this topic and have an idea mentally of what I think is topical but won't let this interfere at all in my judgement process. When I debated a ran a 100% unsubstantial aff and only lost once on T because we were well prepared to debate it.

__Theory:__ Theory is fine, I'll vote for anything from Condo to Process CP theory if you do a good job explaining it, however I typically default neg on these issues so you need to WIN the debate. If you go for severance theory or something like that you're probably not gonna win unless it was dropped, and even than don't think you have the debate in the bag, you still have to explain you're arguments and impact them and explain why they can't make any new arguments and impact that. As for performance/critical affs - I'm ok with far out there arguments on theory, at the TOC my junior year I went for K O/W Theory and I am willing to hear arguments like that but you have to do a really good job.

__New Arguments:__ I will watch out for these but only will do anything about it if you point it out and than impact that. Just saying it is new is not a complete argument, you need to explain why allowing it would be bad for debate. I understand there is time constraint in speeches like the 2NR and will give some leniency but you still need to have a complete argument.

As for new 2AR arguments - I protect the 2NR (I was a 2N and I feel their pain) but sometimes these need to be made, don't be afraid to make them if you know you can't win without them. Just make sure that you explain A. The argument B. a link to this argument somewhere in the 1AR, if it's a brand new 2AR argument it will probably be a very contrived tie but thats better than none. C. A reason that this argument is justified and why the 2NR should have seen this coming. I will still be averse to new 2AR arguments and probably will side with the 2NR but this is your best chance and you could pull it off.

__Kritiks:__ I love these arguments IF they're executed well and HATE them if executed poorly. I think that most K teams do the bare minimum with the argument and would not get my ballot because they rely on generic links and don't give specific applications. When I was debating I had links Security links to everything from Poverty Securitization to Food Securitization and link walls to every major team I thought we might hit. If you don't have specific links that doesn't mean give up, it just means you need to innovate. What you should do is give SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how the affirmative represents the link. I LOVE this. You should QUOTE the affirmatives evidence or speech act to garner specific links. This will not only result in a better standing in the debate for you, but also higher speaker points.

I'm familiar with a lot of critical literature and was a former Philosophy major but that doesn't mean that I definitely know of you're super obscure K. You should always make sure to explain the thesis of your K as well as your link arguments in detail.

__CP's__ A good specific CP to the aff is always a great debate. Just make sure to explain the difference between the CP and the Aff if it is a confusing one (e.g. you don't need to explain the consultation process in great detail if you read a consult CP, we all get it, it's consult) but if it's a very precise PIC or something you need to do work on the difference and why the CP is distinct. I default offense defense on these debates but can be convinced otherwise, this can help you if they have game on the DA but not the CP but can hurt if you don't have game on the solvency deficit, etc.

Process CPs - I actually went for Consult NATO quite a lot in my senior year and am familiar with most process CP's. I don't like them because they're boring to listen to, but I will evaluate them like any other argument because I know they are strategic and I don't impose my biases. If it's a complicated process CP explain the mechanism and difference from the aff in detail.

__DA's__ DA's are good so long as the evidence quality is good and it's not some poorly strung together argument. Politics, plan based DA's etc. all fine some are better quality than others though. The impact part of the debate is the most important to me, do this well and you will be rewarded. Don't however ignore other parts of the debate because you're winning the impact, the uniqueness and link are how you get access to it so obviously if you're doing excellent on the impact debate but lose the link level completely you wont win. Comparative impact calculus is incredibly important here. Also sit on the issues they are strongest on and actually analyze the evidence and compare why your evidence assumes/is predictive vs. descriptive, etc. rather than generic and lazy "try or die" type analysis

__Cross-X:__ I think a great deal of speaker points are gained or lost here, I love a great cross x. I tend to think things getting a little bit aggressive is fine, but I don't like A. talking over eachother for too long and B. asking questions and cutting the person off after like 3 words and asking another one, if you want to ask a new question a few times thats fine do it, don't let them ramble on and on, but if this happens too frequently in a cross x, you're probably just a jerk and not making you're argument look too well either and that will show in you're speaker points. Speeches are really important to speaker points too obviously so don't save it all up for CX.