Makuch,+Flynn

Updated October 2015: Debated for GBN 2006-2010 Debated for the University of Texas 2010-2015 Assistant Coach for Westwood HS 2011-2013 Assistant Coach for Bronx Science 2013-2015 Assistant Coach for Wichita State University 2015-present

MOST RECENT PHILOSOPHY UPDATES ARE ON TABROOM

***YES, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE EMAIL CHAIN. My email is flynnmakuch@gmail.com.**
 * That doesn't mean that I am reading along your ev as you read it necessarily. **


 * Not separating things into different flows is fine with me if that's your style. **
 * I will say clear 1-2 times if I can't understand you, but after that you're on your own, and I'll just do my best to flow whatever words I can pick out, often to your detriment. If I don't have an argument flowed, then I likely will not hold the other team responsible for answering it. **

I really really really don't care what arguments you make** - I have experience both debating and teaching policy and critical debate. Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant and a reason why that matters. "They conceded the link turn" or "extend across the 2ac argument that obama has no political capital" or "extend khalilzad they dropped it" is not a sufficient extension of an argument. Make framing arguments about the way I should make a decision. This includes framework, reasonability etc but also other framing issues like whether or not I should use offense/defense to decide the CP+DA, or what the most important criteria is for comparing uniqueness evidence etc etc. Every later rebuttal should start with an "RFD" statement - think through if you are going to win, why? and if you were to lose, pre-empt those arguments. If your strategy relies on racism/patriarchy/ableism/transphobia good, you are going to lose.
 * Random things:**
 * I worked at camps during the summer and judge frequently throughout the year so I have a reasonably good knowledge of the topic.**

Kritiks: Specificity. By the block, the link/alt/impact explanation should all be contextualized to the 1ac you're debating. You don't necessarily need ev about the plan mechanism or whatever - just smart arguments. What does it mean if you win framework? You must explicitly answer this question in the 2nr/2ar.

Counterplans: Counterplans that compete based on normals means and not the mandates of the plan are a tough sell, because those counterplans are all possible outcomes of the plan. Competition based on the word "should" or "resolved" is rarely persuasive to me. (As with anything, though, if those args are not well answered, then they can win the debate.) I actually enjoy a good theory debate with well developed arguments. I very rarely see this though. SLOW down and think through arguments in the rebuttals instead of reading prewritten blocks on every issue. I could be most easily persuaded that international fiat, 50 state fiat, consult counterplans, multiple conditional advocacies, offsets counterplans, and any counterplan that competes off normal means are bad. It's really important in the 2nr/2ar to quantify what the threshold for solvency is. For example, if you win that the CP solves 50% of the adv, what does that mean?

T: Comparative impact calculus is very important and will decide this debate in close rounds. I tend to err aff in that I don't necessarily think that a somewhat more limiting interpretation is automatically preferable. That said, the aff needs to make these arguments.

Framework: The neg limits struggle is real, so hopefully the aff has SOMETHING to do with the topic. Stable advocacies/methods are good, but that doesn't require the use of the US/USFG. But whatever, my opinion on this is evolving and dependent on the debate.

DAs: Analytics that demonstrate the poor nature of the internal link chain of the DA will be rewarded with substantial defense.