Bean,+Kyle

**R. Kyle Bean** **Coach (Policy and LD Debate), Bellaire HS (TX)**

**Experience:**  Bellaire HS '06 (Policy, LD)  Harvard '10 (American Parli)

(Updated 2/17/14)

**//__Both CX and LD:__ //**

I'm fine with a fairly rapid rate of speed - so long as it doesn't impede your communication. I preference clarity massively over speed - if you're unclear and don't articulate well, it's to your benefit to slow up a bit on at least your tags and cites. I WILL NOT PROMPT YOU ON CLARITY, and I will not pull evidence after the round to do clarification for you - only to resolve substantive questions of what evidence actually says, if those questions arise in-round. Debate is a communication activity, and the onus is on the competitors to ensure that they are communicating to the judge adequately.

I evaluate arguments Tabula Rasa (meaning winning the arguments wins you the flow), but I evaluate rounds as a policymaker (meaning winning the right flows wins you the round) unless doing otherwise is justified in-round. I strongly prefer in-depth case debate, but realize that's not always an option. Weighing arguments is good, weighing worlds is even better, doing both is best. Similarly, specific evidence is good, strong spin is even better, having both is best.

Being rude, overly aggressive, etc. is not entertaining - it's uncomfortable and awkward. And will result in your speaks being punished severely. Be civil. Treat each other like people. Flash counts as prep; prep stops when the drive leaves your computer. I prefer closed cross-examination and am profoundly annoyed by flex prep, though I won't prevent you from doing either if both teams agree to it.

__//**CX: **//__

As a result of the above mindset, I tend to be unlikely to vote on two arguments in particular (though I have voted for both in the past). I tend to be skeptical of "performance" or "nontraditional" affirmations, particularly if they don't come with a plantext or some policy-minded form of implementation. If you intend to run a performance in front of me, you will need to put SIGNIFICANT ink on the flow articulating WHY I should COMPLETELY reject a policy paradigm. While I believe criticism and theory has a place in driving policy arguments, I don't on face accept (at least not without warrant and argument) that we ought throw policy considerations out completely. Similarly, I tend to not be compelled by K arguments from EITHER team that are wholly non-germane to the resolution (i.e., links of omission do not impress me, etc.).

**//Topicality//:** I tend to prefer jurisdictional-type voters over procedural justifications (just because something is fairer doesn't necessarily mean that I should care about/vote on it - debate is often profoundly unfair), but I'll vote on procedural justifications if they're well-explained and sufficiently warranted. Generally, the more contextual a definition the better. I tend to err in favor of reasonability over CI as a mode of evaluating which definitions to prefer, but I will evaluate T through the CI lens if it's well-defended. Abuse needs to be proven to be a voter, but it need not be particularly significant - my threshold on abuse is quite low.

**//Theory//:** I tend to err neg on theory, within reason - aff will need to spend substantial time developing their justifications and framework for evaluating theory in order for me to vote on it. Justification of a priori voters is key. Abuse needs to be articulated for theory to be a voter. 10 seconds at the top of the 2AR on condo bad, even if true and dropped, is nowhere near sufficient to win the ballot.

That said, I am very sympathetic to aff arguments on condo - it's definitely both possible and preferable to construct a non-contradictory negative advocacy with multiple counterplan/kritik positions, and not doing so strikes me as lazy.

**//Kritiks//:** I truly enjoy thoughtful and germane Kritiks, but I find most run in front of me are neither. Links of omission are not links. Strong and clear articulation on framework, the link debate, and the alt debate are key. Specific to the alt, I need to know what the negative world looks like and how we achieve it before I even remotely consider voting on the K.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">If you're making an objection to the method of the aff's case or the resolution at large, it should be a centerpiece of your neg strategy. That said, most kritik ideologies aren't as black and white as they are painted by the neg team, and recognition and discussion of this nuance is a must for both teams in kritik rounds. I don't necessarily buy that Affs have to be married to their method or that that the Kritik is necessarily exclusive with certain approaches to the resolution unless those intuitions are justified in-round. The entire POINT of critical ideology is that we need to rethink the way that we conceive of the world, and often this can mean that alteration of Aff viewpoints (i.e., perms), not wholesale rejection, is an appropriate way forward that's consistent with critical ideologies. I ALSO don't necessarily automatically buy rejection or voting neg alternatives just because neg wins I should agree with the viewpoint of the kritik - the onus is on the negative team to justify why these are superior options to the Aff's proposition or perm, as well. If you've got a policy/specific alternative for the kritik, that's ALWAYS preferable to something vague - makes it very easy to conceptualize Aff vs. Neg world, and certainly fits much better within the purview of policy-based debate.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">**//Case Argumentation/Disads//:** Don't neglect the link debate - you don't access impacts if you don't link. Specific links and DAs are always better than generic ones. Impact analysis is key when executing the DA debate. Make sure there's mitigation on case to undermine harms or solvency, or else that will almost always outweigh a probablistic DA.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">**//Counterplans//:** Text, competition and solvency need to be addressed in the 1NC. I don't believe perms to be affirmative advocacy (they're a test of competition), but if you justify my entertaining them as advocacy and win such justification, I will evaluate them as such. Consult, delay, and EIS CPs (and their ilk) are probably cheating - in these cases, perm do plan isn't severance.

//__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">LD: **__// <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Specific to LD, I want a clear story linking back the argumentation in the round to both sides' value(s) and criteri(on/a) (or standards, whatever terminology you prefer) or devaluing one side's or the others' so I get a sense of how you want me to weigh the round. Debate in LD occurs to me on two levels - one telling me how I should adjudicate the round and one telling me how the arguments should compel me to vote one way or the other based on the framework under which I should adjudicate the round. Despite having a strong policy background and being a largely policy debate coach, I'm really, REALLY anti the penetration of policy-based argumentation into what is largely meant to be (and is largely defined as, via the resolution) a debate about theory. If we're discussing, for instance, a just society, plans about what particular countries should do or counterplans and critiques of particular implementations on the implementation level aren't going to be exceptionally persuasive to me. Speed is fine, but your arguments should be more along the core lines of LD than the core lines of CX.