Mott,+Dalton

Independence High School ‘11 University of Texas at Dallas '15 (Debating) Pr eclusions: Independence Space Topic Experience: UTD Debate Camp, Kansas Tournaments

I see debate as a game of strategy.You can basically go for anything in front me, just make sure to explain it well and impact it ou t.

-- I am fine with speed, just make sure you are clear. I won’t flow if you are not clear. Look up and you will be able to tell real quick if I can understand you.

--Cheating. I mean, C lippi ng and fabrication and not just unfair debate arguments will lead me to drop the team and assign minimum speaker points.

--What an argument is. An asserted claim doesn't constitute one. Saying a bunch of buzz words without substantiation or explanation or warrants will get you minimal speaker p oints and hurt your "argument". The academic and policy literature defines terms and offers policy solutions. I firmly believe we should debate what we're given instead of attempting to guide a topic towards our own arbitrary, unpredictable visions of "good" ground. Adapting to this bias is useful for Affs that have excellent evidence on T, going for T against critical Affs and when you have a great solvency advocate for a CP.

--I like teams that go for arguments that are specific to the aff, but I understand that generics are needed too. Just make sure you spin your generics in a way that is related to the aff. Debate is only interesting when there is clash.

--Counterplans/Disads - are awesome. this is primarily the type of debate I enjoy and am most familiar with. Impact calculus is important - tell me which lense is most important and why - speed > size etc etc. T he less of a plan your CP does the more it competes.

-- I really enjoy T and Theory debates, you should be framing them like you would a disadvantage and weigh offensive and defense. I tend to err neg on counterplan theory. As a bad 2A however, I recognize the value of theory to win debates. This having been said, you probably want to have a good comparison between the different interpretations of what the debate would look like in your framework. Be sure to tell me if the theory comes before T and why. I like robust debates about the legitimacy of arguments. Word PICs, Floating PIKs, Condo, etc, etc all have their place and time, so if you want to win my ballot on theory, be sure to be making sets of meta level arguments while also contextualizing these in a way that tell me why the round has been negatively effected. I usually think that most theoretical objections are reasons to reject an argument, but can be persuaded otherwise. The exception to this is conditionality. I like smart counter-definitions. Saying that your counte-rdefinition is to get "1 conditional word pic, a conditional K, a conditional consult counterplan, and a conditional 2nc uniqueness counterplan" isnt especially compelling. I will likely only vote for T if it is the only thing you go for in the 2NR.

-- I am completely fine with the K and in most rounds in college I have one in the 1NC. I tend to prefer policy oriented debates because I enjoy them more, but that does not mean I favor that form of debate when it comes down to deciding. Most of the more common K’s I will understand, but don’t give me to much credit on knowing what your random French Philosopher said.