Nelson,+Grant

Debate for Baylor, Graduate 2012

I rarely vote on conditionality bad; I think it’s a good thing. Topicality probably outweighs theory, unless the neg drops the ball on potential abuse/reasonability in a big way. Unless told otherwise, I default to voting for the team that prevents the biggest impacts, (risk)(magnitude) is the default risk calculus. Jokes will get you better speakerpoints, but references to Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Family Guy, etc. aren’t funny.

I tend to go for politics/case or politics/CP, so I’d rather hear those debates, and feel far more competent in adjudicating those throwdowns rather than a kritik mashup. That said, being around Cook and McMc has left me with a decent understanding of most critiques.

Don’t spend all of cross-x pointing out the other team didn’t have a key piece of evidence or their evidence isn’t as explicit as they think it is. I get it after 10 seconds, and if it becomes an issue I’ll read the evidence myself after the round.

If you don’t need all of your prep time, don’t use it. If you do, by all means. I’d rather watch a better speech than suffer because you thought you were too cool for prep time.

Don’t say these: “at the end of the round you’re gonna see” “my evidence is on fire” / “this card is on fire” “we’ll always win” “mine/my” – your arguments are collective, debate is a team activity. Don’t say “my link” or “my impact” “they concede” unless it’s true. People tend to say this 345432 times a speech if they’re not sure what’s going on. Don’t look like them.

Say these: “even if” “we outweigh because… ”