Strachan,+Kiersten

College: University of Oklahoma 2016 High school: Clear Lake High School (Houston) 2011 Rounds on this topic (surveillance): none

The game has changed a lot since I debated, but I don't think that I have. I get that it's your round--do what you want to do--but maybe keep what I have to say in mind.

Case I put case debate first because I think its undervalued. Nothing makes me more proud or excited for young debaters than discussing the end of an aff's solvency article. I think case debate can do real damage and an aff can lose that it solves its advantages.

Kritiks Don't think that just because I go to Oklahoma I'm all over whatever K business you want to throw at me. Nothing annoys me more than listening to a 2nr where I dont know what the alt or impact is and i'm generally supposed to think aff action is the link. I don't think a link and impact alone are case turns. I dont read philosophy for fun, or actually, at all--dont assume I know what the 'Objet petit a' is automatically.

Disads: Impact calc goes a long way but dont shy on your line by line. on the aff, you should have a good reason I shouldnt evaluate DAs through an offense defense paradigm if you arent going for offense, if you only run defense, you're not going to win without an explanation. That being said, a smart observation can sometimes take out a DA. there is such thing as zero risk of a link. if your disad is stupid lack of specific evidence from the other team isnt going to triumph.

Politics: The argument I was best at and loved to research the most. Sure it's contrived and yeah you probably shouldn't be running an elections disad before the Iowa caucus, but I'd love to hear one anyways. I think politics is a bad argument that can be won in the details-- prove that the plan changes perception of a candidate before February 1 and that ruins the election.

Counterplans: Run more of them. Don't overestimate how well your counterplan solves though. You should have a detailed 2nr explanation of how it solves whatever advantage you're trying to solve AND substantial case args on the ones that it doesnt.

Topicality: I generally think affs should be topical. I am sympathetic to negative teams that find the right interpretation and run it well. If you're going for t, I would like to hear less "they hurt education generally" and more "they justify X ridiculous cases."

Theory: Multiple perms bad isnt an argument. Conditionality probably isnt abusive but then again running 9 conditional strategies probably is. if the other team drops conditionality bad in the 2nr why would you go for anything else?

Here are some pretty blunt and over simplified ideas about how I judge: If you use the same 2nc kritik overview that you did last year, that's not a good sign. If you think a good link argument is that "the plan doesnt do x," that's not a good sign. If you don't know or care what the topic is, that's not a good sign. If you think that Nietzsche or Wilderson are the only people that 'get' you, that's not a good sign.

If you love to debate, challenging yourself analytically, and responding to arguments rationally is fun, that's a great sign and I'll gladly listen to you for two hours.