Rice,+Carl

I debated for 2 years at Georgetown, 4 years at Bellarmine College Prep in California, and am now coaching part time at Georgetown Day School.

While I naturally have varying comfort levels with different types of arguments, I will certainly evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the round so feel free to do whatever you do. My preferences below are not meant to change the arguments you run in the round, but perhaps, they can help you determine how to best explain them to me.

Throughout my debate career, I erred towards the policy-side of argumentation (T, CPs, DA). I have less experience with the K, although obviously, I've debated them a lot.

With that said, below are my flexible "default" settings. Arguments made in the round will determine how I vote on these/all issues, so these settings will probably only be relevant when neither team does a good job impacting/comparing arguments.

Topicality - Topicality is a strategic tool. Interpretations with accurate definitional support is clearly preferable. I think that competing interps vs reasonability is a good debate to be had, but all else being equal, I generally err towards competing interpretations unless the T argument is ridiculous/arbitrary. Against arbitrary T violations, not only should affs be able to win more persuasive arguments as to why reasonability is good, but they should also be able to win offensive reasons why the neg's interpretation is bad/aff's interpretation is better under a competing interpretations framework.

CPs (and DAs) - I like them. Case specific PICs are awesome, and I understand the strategic value of generic CPs.

Theory - This year I've come to respect and go for theory a lot more. That being said, I probably have a higher threshold on voting for theory than other arguments. The determing issue is how you impact/compare/organize your arguments. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to evaluate a theory debate when the teams just bring up their 2AC/2NC blocks and just extend the taglines. Such debates become extremely messy, and the judge has little way to evaluate the competing claims without intervening. If you impact and compare your arguments, however, I will certainly vote on theory (although not all theory arguments are a voting issue - that's something to be debated as well). In addition, I understand that against some arguments, for instance certain CPs and floating PIKs, your main offense is theory.

Ks - I haven't run many Ks, so if you're going for one, you should be sure to explain your argument. I understand the strategic utility of a K. It's just a matter of cleaning up the debate and explaining your critical arguments.

Performance - I'm probably not the best judge for you if you're a performance team. I'll listen, but I think arguments against performance are pretty persuasive.