O'Bannon,+Cameron


 * My background:**

I was a four-year debater at the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas (2001-2005). I currently work as the program coordinator of the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance. Nonetheless I've missed a lot of the developments in the debate world in the decade between 2005 and 2015, and hence new to the norms governing electronic evidence, sharing files during speeches, etc.

I will flow your debate on paper. I will be reluctant to look at my laptop.


 * General preferences**:

I value good warrants for arguments. A true (or persuasive) analytical argument is worth more than a bad, misapplied, misleadingly highlighted card. Indeed, it's worth more than a hundred such cards.

I value accurate, well-considered use of evidence. If none of your authors would //actually// //make// the argument you //want to make them make//, then your opponents will have an easy time defeating it. It is reasonable to expect that serious arguments will be grounded in (some kind of) literature.

I value debates that demonstrate that their participants actually understand the issues and arguments involved, rather than simply possessing the surface-level understanding necessary to read a card.

I value good-faith, fair competition. I dislike obvious efforts to steal prep, take illegitimate advantage of circumstances outside the debate, etc.


 * Specific arguments**:

I am reluctant to comment on my views on specific arguments (CPs, Ks, T, etc.). Two reasons: With those caveats, I think I can still say a few specific things: Nonetheless, as a general rule, I try to be open to voting on any argument, so long as it's presented well and defended persuasively. I know that everyone(?) says this, so take it for what it's worth.
 * Having been out of debate for a while, I'm not sure my views are sufficiently nuanced or well established for me to write them out at length.
 * To comment on specific arguments is implicitly to distinguish your views from others', to highlight how they might deviate from those of the wider debate community. I don't have a strong enough sense of the debate zeitgeist to make those distinctions intelligently.
 * I like topicality, and will vote on it. At the same time, see the above on accurate use of evidence—don't twist some non-definition into a definition, or a definition into some other, more limiting/strategic definition.
 * I am very comfortable with kritiks; in fact, I think kritiks often satisfy my preferences about warranted arguments, good evidence, etc. better than more "conventional" arguments. (See: most every politics disadvantage.)
 * I have no problem with kritik-y affs, but tend to think that they should have a plan text, be topical, etc. I am likely to be skeptical of "performances," all the more so if they're not germane to the resolution.
 * I appreciate thoughtful case debate, and likewise thoughtful solvency debates on counterplans.