Bonnet,+Drew

Drew Bonnet
Assistant Debate Coach at Shawnee Mission East Previously debated at Emporia High School - 4 years Currently Debating at the University of Kansas


 * Styles:** Speed is totally fine with me, if you aren’t very clear I’ll more than likely show it in body language. Usually when someone isn’t clear while I’m flow you either won’t see me writing/typing or I’ll have a puzzled look on my face. I'll try to listen to Cross-X close enough for some kinda conceded links or whatever. Jokes are fine, but don't be rude or condescending, I don't care if you're a senior debating a freshman they're still at least trying. Debate is awesome, don't make people hate the activity.


 * Theory:** I’ve been a 2N my whole life, chances are that I’ll err negative on most theoretical questions, with a few exception: textual/functional competition, international actor fiat (questionable), object fiat, and similar debates. To win a theory debate with me you need a few things: an interpretation, some reasons why their arguments are bad, and an impact, fleshing out the real impact is sorta whatevs but also gives more leniency in the ballot. I also really doubt that I’m going to vote a team down for a theoretical objection – usually it only results in rejecting the argument and not the team.


 * Topicality:** I’ve got a pretty low threshold on Topicality. T-bases probs a dumb argument but if the aff messes it up, that’s alright. Again, competing interps debate is pretty clutch, persuasive arguments include comparative analysis on the standards level. Don’t be a noob – know how to do a 2NR on this argument or it won’t go so well.


 * Disads:** Love ‘em. Comparative impact analysis is always tight. If there’s a counterplan that solves all or most of the aff, I’m willing to vote on a risk of a link. Permutations on the Politics DA are alright, if you can make a legitimate argument. I have done this kind of debate for roughly 7 years, but have recently switched away so don't expect my knowledge of things like Fiscal Cliff to be extensive.


 * Counterplans:** Actually my favorite argument. PICs = best argument in debate. If you've got some convoluted counterplan text, explain it in the 2NC -- you've got the block and thus you've got the time. Competition is absolutely key. Textual competition is probably more key to debates than functional in my mind (meaning XO or NSD/Courts CPs are alright, although I'd prefer more original arguments), although both of them are extremely important. Permutations need to be explained. Legitimate perms include the entire plan and all/some of the Counterplan.


 * Kritiks:** This is the kind of debate that I do the most lately. I'm knowledgable about authors like Heidegger, Levinas, etc. and have read some ontology literature. Chances are I've read a little bit of whatever your author is, and if you're clear enough in your arguments I can generally figure it out. I just need you to be winning top-level uniqueness, links, impact, and either an alternative or a strong defense of error replication and presumption. For the affirmative, perms are strong and impact turning the K for a while in the 2AC is generally persuasive. The aff has to win top-level uniqueness as well.


 * Framework**: Similar to the theory debates, interp and reasons why their arguments suck are paramount. I prefer an impact argumentation debate over a framework argument, but whatever your game is works with me.Some Util/Consequentialism good v. the Ontology first arguments are always compelling if done correctly.

If any questions exist, ask away before you start the round.

If you want to research more info about Life coach then go over to **[|Life coach]**.