O'Neill,+Phelan

Blake School '10 University of Iowa '14 Current Affiliation: Blake (MN) Conflicts: Blake (MN)


 * UPDATED 2/26/13 FOR THE IOWA STATE TOURNAMENT**

I've debated for the University of Iowa and am currently an assistant coach for Blake. A couple of general things that I've noticed this year from judging:

1. I value teams/debaters that engage case. In rounds where the 2ar does not articulate why there is a large risk of case external to "DA Turns Case"/CPs/Ks I end up voting neg most of the time. Similarly, negs that invest in doing turns case work that deal with the specific scenarios/internal links of the aff are going to be in good shape. This isn't to say that most generic neg "turns case" ev is great, but affs need to do that work for me.

2. In K debates, I generally find framework an important starting point. Both sides in these debates need to address the role of the ballot and the decision calculus that fits the judge's decision calculus. Teams that skimp on this will probably find that I resolve most questions in the debate unfavorably.

3. Tech vs. Truth -- I don't think that this is an accurate dichotomy for me. Tech and truth are mutually reinforcing. Technical arguments are both important, but are shaped by the credibility of the argument. The quality of evidence, the credibility of the debaters. C-x, and controlling the spin all also matter and can be as important as "tech."

Specifics

CPs/DAs - I err neg on basic theory questions (condo, well-researched PICs, states, etc) but am more aff leaning on a lot of other ones (most things based on textual competition, consult, etc). General rule of thumb: if you have a card that talks about doing your CP in the context of something that could be reasonably interpreted to be the Aff, you're good. I'm a big fan of CPs that have a lot of supporting evidence, but am not a big fan of CPs that rely more on smoke and mirrors. Disads are great, especially ones with creative link stories.

T - I'm sort of neutral on the question of competing interps vs reasonability but I think I probably lean a little more towards competing interps. Caselists/evidence are good. I don't know a lot about the intricacies of the topic so while I don't have any preexisting biases in terms of what is/isn't topical, I also am not intimately familiar with the lit base.

Theory - I get that sometimes its strategic/necessary and will try to avoid punishing you for going for it in those situations but generally am not a fan of theory debates. I generally presume you need to win that there's enough abuse that it was almost impossible for you to debate as a result of their strat to reject the team and not the arg, but I could theoretically be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks -- Going for the K is a double-edged sword for me. Good kritik debates can be devastating and are some of my favorite debates, but I find a lot of K debates to be sub-par. Negs need to articulate a framework for evaluating the alt/impacts and then use that to frame the perm and case vs the K debates. Affs need to win reasons why their case impacts matter (see above). I'm familiar with most common K literature, but if your K is more obscure you should have a clear explanation of what the K story is. K debates generally come down to whose explanation of what the Aff does is better. A lot of the times when I vote for the K, affs read a bunch of generic kritik answers without explaining how they relate to the K or the Aff which is not a winning strat in front of me.

Performances -- I have very little experience with this style of debate but am certainly open to it. Affs should have an interpretation of the topic under which they're topical if they're going to go for a non-traditional strategy. However, my general predisposition is that the debate should center around some form of advocacy that falls within the resolution (preferably an action taken by the USfg). That doesn't mean you can't beat neg framework arguments, it just means you will probably start off a little behind on these debates.