Clarke,+Kevin

Debated for 4 Years in High School and 1 Year in College for the University of Texas Conflicted with Dulles High School and Churchill High School. I prefer to see the debaters advance whatever argument they believe they are good at. I do not have any biases with types of argument or quantity of arguments. Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

Cross-Examination – I flow cross-examination; you should make cross-examination matter.

Theory – I am fine with a theory debate. I don’t have a particular bias on conditionality; I have gone for conditionality bad several times, yet I enjoy debates with multiple counterplans and/or kritiks (as long as the team can implement and be responsible for their advocacies without it being disorganized).

Framework / Topicality – I don’t have biases on topicality/framework, or at least my bias is debatable depending on what arguments or decision calculus you give me to prioritize standards/offense. If no one in the last speeches gives me a decision calculus, then I will default to whatever decision calculus was prevalent in earlier parts of the debate or cross-examination periods.

Critiques – I am comfortable with some critical literature and I enjoy a well deployed critique debate.

Affirmative Critiques – I do not have any biases; If a critique affirmative is what you are most comfortable with, then you should run it.

Negative Critiques – Be able to explain it in terms of the affirmative. It must be a unique reason to vote negative/not affirmative. The idea that “It doesn’t need uniqueness, because it’s a kritik” is laughable. You need to be able to explain how the alternative provides uniqueness to your impacts. This means be able to explain either how your ethics, rejection, or whatever translates into voting negative, and/or how your alternative solves the need for the affirmative, and/or how the links turn case as a net benefit to the alternative.

Disadvantages/Counterplans – Yes; Good.

PICs/Stupid/Tricky Counterplans – Yes, but you need to recognize when the 2AC/1AR has successfully diffused your trick and abandon the argument. Strategy wins.