Makos,+Isaac

Homewood-Flossmoor High School, Class of 2012

Beloit College, Class of 2016

As debaters, your responsibility to make me understand your position and convince me that I should vote in your favor. On the spectrum of policy to kritikal, I'm closer to the policy end. I really, really don't enjoy T debates. If the aff is running something that's completely out of the "box" of the topic, then run T, but if you're thinking of running "T: Substantial is 2%" or a T violation based on a definition of the word "its" please save it for a different round. I will flow it, and if it comes to it I will vote on and for it, but I will not enjoy it. I participated in policy debate for four years of high school and have served as a judge for three years of college. During my time as a debater my preferred argument on the Negative was the Cap K. I will listen to any kritik, but the more "out there" you plan on going, the slower you need to go and the more you need to budget time for clear overviews and explanations using layman's terms. If all I have on my flow for the 2NR is buzzwords and repeated tags, your chances of winning on a K take a nosedive. The same goes for framework and other theory arguments, particularly ones involving the role of the ballot and my role as a judge. Defaulting to rapid and rote recitation of tags and relying on me, the judge, to translate buzzwords into a reason to vote one way or the other is not only a violation of your duties as a debater but also a sure road to failure. If one team relies on untranslated arguments and expects me to do the hard work of making your case to myself, and the other makes more basic arguments that I understand without trouble, then I will side with the team who is making their case understandable, even if the other team has more arguments on the flow.