Manion,+Kurt

I debated at Loyola Blakefield (MD) all four years; I did policy freshman year and LD for the rest. I debated both on the National circuit and local traditional tournaments, and broke/qualified a few times.

Do what you do, and do it well. Whatever your style is: I recognize it and understand everything you're saying, so do not hold back and do exactly what you would do if you were your own judge. I like speed, but I might not be capable of keeping up, since I'm out of practice.

I recommend structuring arguments in "even if…" constructs. Be gutsy - if you've lost an argument just say so and tell me the implication.

The best thing to do is ask me about whatever argument you're running and I'll tell you how I'll evaluate it and what I'll look for. I'll tell you before round, but here I'll include notes on the kritik and theory.

KRITIK:—The kritik has four parts: (a.) Link; (b.) internal link; (c.) Impact; and (d.) Framework. Most people think §d is the alternative, but they are wrong. In the F/w you are telling me why I ought to vote for/care about what ever imx (§c) is entailed in the underlying assumptions (§a) of the opponents case; an alt is one variation of a f/w argument and some judges, erroneously, require one to include a "substantial alt" to their kritik, but a good example of a f/w argument is "a judge ought never vote for a performance that endorses φ because all choices are an act of ethical self-fashioning". It's fundamentally a reason to vote, and for no reason should the f/w be restricted to an alt. It would behove anyone interacting with a kritik to read Shanahan's original exposition of the kritik «http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Shanahan1993HealthCare.htm».

THEORY:—Topicality is the original theory shell, and all other theory shells derive themselves from topicality and only exist because of topicality. Since, all T-shells come from the T-shell they retain the format and all characteristics of the T-shell, so you should explain your T-shell in terms of the T-shell. In keeping with this provision you may present your shell in paragraph form, rather than the standard a–d format that seems to be in vogue w/ the national circuit. The a–d format—(a.) interpretation, (b.) violation, (c.) standards, and (d.) voters—puts focus on creating a rule for debate, but paragraph theory allows for a de-emphasis—but not removal—of this kitsch and the argument should fundamentally be: "my opponent has done φ (§b), which is unfair/uneducational because of ψ (§c), and you should drop them because…(§d)". Note, §d is, again, framework, and since it is uniform across all T-shells (including the T-shell) if you are running multiple T-shells, you may say it once—at the beginning, at the end, or in the first shell—and extend it to all the others.

Theory-level debate is _identical_ to cost-benefit analysis. The best way to debate theory in front of me is to **_turn the standards_**; this is the often neglected pattern of decimating a theory shell, and is easier for me to judge than the other two standard patterns. I'm slightly sympathetic to the "offensive counter-interpretation" pattern, since it treats the theory-level debate as a utilitarianism debate, which it is, and leverages offense against the opposing shell, but the turns should be enough to garner your own theoretical offense, and they waste less time. The "reverse voter issue" pattern should _only_ be used in desperate situations where it is _actually_ necessary for you to check back against abuse. The RVI is transparently a claim that I should neglect logic, since a debater, obviously, should not win for being fair; an RVI says that while that's true that, that debater should win by means of an exception to this based on the necessity of counter-acting a strategy skew, and I hold the debater attempting to make this argument to a very high standard to prove that I should neglect logic. It should be noted that I prefer reasonability, but default to counter-interpretation paradigm absent an argument claiming (even vaguely, or without naming specifically) a reasonability f/w.

COUNTER-PLANS:—A counter-plan is a disadvantage with solvency, thus if you lose the solvency of a counter-plan, the counter-plan still has an impact. There is an old policy-debate format where what we currently call a counter-plan is presented in two off-case positions: the first being tagged as a disadvantage, the second being tagged as a counter-plan, and following the disad this CP is just supplementary solvency arguments to the core disad.

GENERIC DISADS:—If you find the Ice Age DA on the wiki, this is the standard of quality I hold generic disad to, which is not very high, but extremely reasonable. Just run them in front of me if they're short.

FLOW:—All off case positions are extensible case arguments, so theoretically you could read Topicality in either the first off-case position, or read it at the top of the AC line-by-line; in front of me it puts you in a better place to tell me to flow 14-off, and when on the line-by-line extend your off case positions to a particular place in the case: this helps me flow everything.

_Most importantly_ to helping me flow your arguments is to organize them in overviews, line-by-line, and underviews. Also, you can separate sections of your arguments into divisions which do not disrupt the numbering of arguments, but places like arguments together, to help your 12 answers to case to be digestible.

Each part of the debate should represent the debate as a whole, this is how I judge.