Graham,+Patrick

I debated for three years (2009-2011) for Southlake Carroll high school in Texas, and I am currently a student at Reed College in Portland Oregon. I qualified for the ToC my junior and senior years, and competed in outrounds at TFA state all three years.


 * General stuff**

I don't have a lot of rules, I think y'all should debate how you want to, and it's not my job to tell you what kind of positions you can and can't run. That being said, I obviously have predispositions to certain arguments with which I am familiar. I am more experienced evaluating framework heavy truth-testy debates and critical debates. However, I really enjoy listening to other types of debates, some of my all time favorite rounds have been util and theory debates, but I think that I am simply less qualified to judge those types of rounds, especially theory heavy ones. If you and your opponent choose to blaze through 6 shells each, you guys are probably gonna lose me. This is not to say that I won't try my hardest to follow you if you want to try one of these strategies, you should just take my inexperience into account.

Basically, to win my ballot, give me a conception of your burden as a debater (prove the resolution true, prove the aff world desirable, prove the other debater's in round actions have violated some normative standard -- fairness, ethical speech, etc), then explain what it means to meet that burden (criterion structure, etc), and then tell me why you meet it (offense).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I think that extensions are an extremely crucial part of a debate round. To get high speaks and avoid me discounting arguments you think are important, do a thorough job extending the warrants of your position. Merely restating the claim is not enough for me to feel comfortable voting off of it. Now, I realize that what counts as "thorough" is contextually derived (a "thorough" 1AR extension is perhaps something less objectively explicative than a "thorough" 2N extension), and I realize that there are no principled ways of formulating precise criteria for "thoroughness" which means that to some extent my judgement of this will inevitably be arbitrary. That being said, I think if you adhere to the following rule, you will always be okay: always err on the side of over-explanation of warrants, especially in crucial args.


 * Speed**

Speed is fine, but I am a truly awful flower. Not going your top speed might be a good idea. If you must go your top speed, slow down for card names, argument breaks, and dense literature. I use the term dense here to avoid equivocation with "critical." Kant is just as dense, if not more so, than 90% of "critical" literature out there. If I can't flow the argument with just the card, and you make no attempt to deeply clarify the argument with analysis under the card, both your opponent and I will be sad :(. I feel VERY uncomfortable pulling the trigger on an argument whose internal warrants I don't understand in the first speech. I'll yell clear a couple times before I'll give up, but please try and slow down if I tell you to.


 * Theory**

I come to the table in theory debates with a workable but not all encompassing grasp on the vocabulary of theory. If my theory flow gets really muddled, I will probably make a bad decision. So, you should try to make sure that my theory flow does not get muddled by explaining the implications of your arguments. Be explicit. Point out which arguments your spike is taking out, and explain why. When doing weighing, explain why you are outweighing your opponent in explicitly comparative terms. In general, don't just speed through a thousand tiny theory analytics, all the while making complex strategic moves, and expect me to have a full understanding of the way your arguments function.

Also, I default to reasonability. If you choose to justify competing interps, I default to assuming the existence of an RVI, though obviously am open to args as to why RVIs are bad. Finally, my understanding of the meaning of these terms may differ from yours. If you are worried about that being the case, ask me before round.


 * Policy Concepts**

I am vaguely familiar with the basic composition of policy style arguments, and have a good enough grasp of the vocabulary to not be lost from the start. However, I am not super familiar with more advanced policy concepts that rarely see LD rounds. I realize this is a super vague dichotomy (between basic and advanced) and it may not help in deciphering exactly what I know, so if you have any questions, ask before the round. If I happen to be unfamiliar with the term you ask about, just make sure that in round, if you choose to use it, you clearly describe its function.

A brief reminder -- I default to assuming that the aff has to prove the resolution true. When the aff reads a plan, I expect that plan to prove the statement of the res true. If you are running a parametrics aff, that means interprative or theoretical justification for why your aff is sufficient to meet your burden as the affirmative debater. I don't just assume that because you run a plan that the res is now the plan text. Even if your opponent does not contest your plans ability to affirm, I still default to assuming that you are defending the resolution. This is not to say you can't justify why your plan text should become the res, just that it is not my default stance.


 * Critical Positions**

I am pretty comfortable with most "critical" literature. That does not, however, mean you can skimp on explaining it fully. If you choose to run a critical position, I fully expect you to be able to explain it in terms that your opponent will be able to understand. This means not just repeating the same jargon filled phrases over and over again in CX. If it becomes clear that you do not know what you are talking about, expect bad speaks.

Also, some critical literature is simply too dense to be read in a debate round without a lot of explanation. When running a critical position, err on the side of over explanation, for all of our sakes. The point of your K should be to investigate a complicated issue and persuasively deploy it in round, not to confuse your opponent and obfuscate your strategy.

All that being said, I really really really like well run (strategic and well explained) critical positions. I think running critical positions is challenging, both academically and strategically, and as such, will reward debaters who invest in those positions with high speaks. The fastest way to a 30 is a with well run, passionately argued critical position.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask!


 * I reserve the right to clarify . . .** your speaks if you act in bad form towards either me or your opponent after the round. Feel free to push me on my RFD -- I think that questions after round are often times the most educationally valuable -- but don't get angry and don't disrespect me or your opponent. I promise that I will treat you with respect, that I will listen to what you have to say, and that I will acknowledge my mistakes and do my absolute best to learn from them. I ask that you do the same.

<3<3<3 -- Pgraham