Colquitt,+Grant

I debated at Moore high school in Oklahoma for 4 years. 3 Time NDSA qualifier, Out-rounds of numerous TOC qualifiers, and 2 Time state semi-finalists. One year of college debate at the University of Central Oklahoma. Rounds on the Education Topic- 0 Updated August 28th 2017 Short version: All of my experience is as a 2N, and most of it is going for the K, specifically; settler colonialism, anti-blackness, Deleuze, and Queerness. I have read a lot of literature in and outside of that list but I put the burden of explanation on the debaters and like to think I am really open to any argument that is explained and impacted well in terms the ballot. Run anything you want that you think can win or has value in and of itself. I will do everything in my power to evaluate in the debate in front of me absent bias or predisposition. I tend to view debate as an academic activity, though I'm not all attached to that interp and can be persuaded to be whatever you need me to be (policymaker, etc). I think the affirmative should defend an example of the resolution with an impact and solvency mechanism, (I default to being flexible as to what that means and the nature of those things is not of great concern) and the negative should disagree with that in some way that has an impact that is clearly articulated in relation and opposition to the affirmative (do impact calculus). The nature of that disagreement is entirely up to the debaters. If your arguments are better (by whatever in-round established metric) you will win absent any insurmountable ethical concerns in round. Speed is obviously fine but clarity is important, I will be vocal and visual if I can't understand you. Prep ends when you're finished prepping. (Tournament allowed).


 * K AFFs/ T / Framework**- These are both fine and I think they are largely about the interps and their respective ethical and procedural benefits both inside and outside of debate. I am more persuaded by fairness and education standards tied to specific actions actions of the AFF by both sides as opposed to abstract impact turns by AFFs and hyperbolic impacts by NEGs. I do think AFFs get impact turns to framework but that K AFFs can be justified on their own merits outside of that ie, you don't have to win an impact turn. That means negatives need a reason the AFF and its model of debate are bad.


 * Method Debates**- I think these are fine but negatives need reasons the affirmative is bad (links), I've also never understood the justification for method debates meaning links and other competition theory is no longer relevant, thus I tend to end up on the AFFs get perms side of this debate. Though that isn't a hard and fast rule and I can be persuaded otherwise.


 * Role of the ballot-** I need to know what you contextually mean by this in terms of what I'm supposed to do with this. Is this an impact framing argument? Framework? Solvency? Impact? So many questions that if you answer you will win more often.


 * Perms-** I default that the burden is on the AFF to explain why the perm resolves the links to the net benefits.


 * Counterplans-** These are of course fine but too often that some of these don't disagree with the affirmative ie, they result in the whole plan these seem to have theoretical and substantive issues that aren't allows strategically explored. However CPs that can meet that burden or explain that they do will do just fine in front of me.

Some of the major influences on how I veiw debates that might be helpful include, Eli Brennan and James Chiles. Feel free to email me with any questions pre or post round at: grantcolquitt87@gmail.com Have fun, debate what you love, and don't be a jerk.