Nickel,+Kelly

Rounds on the Topic: 20 - ish High School debate: Ponderosa High School in CO (traveled some) - 4 years policy College Debate: University of Wyoming - 2 years policy, and currently debating (policy) at the University of Minnesota Coaching: I currently coach for the Blake School in Minneapolis, MN

I default to policy-making but I am willing to listen to anything. I am familiar with all sorts of debate and while I have my preferences, do what you do well, not what I like to see. Some specifics:

Topicality: It is a voting issue and is not an RVI. You will kill your own ethos if you try to argue that it is since it is a burden for the affirmative not a reason to vote for the affirmative external to meeting this burden. Topicality should be treated like a disad. If you win your link (or your interpretation as it goes), it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an impact (why is this bad for debate? Standards are not impacts but rather, framing mechanisms for this evaluation). If you win your impact, it doesn’t matter if you have lost your link (i.e. your interpretation).

Theory: This is pretty much the same as topicality. It is probably not evaluated on the same level as topicality (i.e. if you want theory to come before topicality, you need to have a pretty compelling argument because it seems like your theory debate is secondary to the ability to have a debate – which is meeting your burden of topicality). I probably have a higher threshold for conditionality bad. Other than that, I am more neutral. Just persuade me.

Case: I love good case debates. There are very few situations that it would not be strategic to play some case defense. Impact turning is cool if that’s your thing.

Disads: I like disad debates. Make sure to do impact calculus. Making turns the case arguments are generally good ideas. This should be pretty straight forward.

CPs: I really enjoy CPs – I think they are interesting when debated particularly because of solvency mechanisms and net benefits. Disads to the CP are good ideas, perms seem necessary, etc. Both teams need to make arguments about either why the CP does not solve all of the aff in specific terms and how the CP does solve each internal link to each advantage of the aff. I like PICs. I think consultation is fine (you can have that theory debate). Same as agent CPs. Only concern is these new “advantage CPs”. I personally love advantage CPs where you do one mechanism that maybe solves two advantages but probably only one and means you’re probably impact turning the other ones or have some solid defense. I have not been able to resolve this trend about having multiple “planks” to your CPs so that you solve each advantage through a different mechanism. I’m a bit weary of that trend to say the least.

Kritiks: They can be gateway issues or they can have alternatives. Debate it how you prefer to and how you think is best. Links are important (links of omission are probably not a good thing). The more specific you can make your applications the better off you will probably be. Impact calculus is important even for kritiks. Framework arguments: I believe kritiks do have a place in debate – you can place limits on this and that is a good debate to have. Disads to the alternative and link defense also are good places to concentrate.

Really, just do what you want to do. Impact everything you do and explain why it matters in the context of the debate. I don’t have strong preferences but do tend to see things in a very offense/defense framework.