Quosiq,+David

David Quosig Coach at Washington Technology Magnet in St. Paul MN Debated for Brown Deer High School (Wisconsin) 1999-2003

__Quick Notes__I don't enjoy speed for speed's sake. Your organization and signposting better be clear if you are going for speed, and some sort of modulation to differentiate different areas of the speed is crucial.If you don't time yourself at higher levels of competition, I stop listening/flowing when my timer runs out. Prep stops when the flash drive is out of the computer. __Summary__ I was raised on stock issues, and still prefer a good old fashioned clash over the case. As a general rule, I prefer arguments that are specific to the case, but as I model myself as TAB as possible I'll listen to anything I'm told to vote on; you had just better make sense about it. Assume I don't know your jargon/acronym unless you have explained the word once. Clash is the most important issue for me, and I'm annoyed when teams don't clash on issues. When possible, I vote where teams have spent the most amount of their time unless there are glaring errors on either teams part.

Related to my comments on speed, line by line and proper speech org are important to me.

Unless I think a team is lying about a card, I won't call them. Cards are good, but some top notch analysis is better.

__Topicality & Theory__

I enjoy the T debate; I feel it is an important check on the Aff, however I expect it to be run well. If you read your speed block over and over again because that is the depth you are willing to go on T, then I will probably not vote for you. I find myself giving the Aff a short leash on effects topicality. As far as theory, too often I feel like teams hedge their bets so much on running theory AND other advocacies that they dilute their own theory arguments. If you honestly think the other team should lose on theory, then you had better give a good explanation of it and spend some time trying to convince me of it. Conditionality is an important part of the neg strategy, but more than two gets out of hand and is clearly a cheap tactic. I enjoy when the negative assumes a coherent strategy (disads that don't link to CP / Alt K etc.), and the more you theorycraft multiple worlds to keep all your balls in the air, the more inclined I am to listen to the Aff's conditionality argument.

__Disadvantages__

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Specificity is key for me to listen to any argument; weak links/uniqueness arguments are sure way for me to not vote for your disad. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">As always, if you want me to vote on impact calculus between plan/quo, make sure to include that in your rebuttals.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">__Counterplans__

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Be careful when perming; if you start talking about it like an advocacy, I'll be inclined to treat it as such and if the negative calls you on it, you're probably done. Perming is a test of competitiveness, nothing more. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Negatives, make sure your counterplan is competitive, and remember to tell me what I should be voting on.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Plan+ is tough to pull off.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> __Kritiks__I'll be honest; K debate sometimes bothers me because of its lack of specificity. That, and the way they are often advocated in a very smoke and mirrors way.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">That being said, there is a place for a well run K, but you had better assume that no one else in the room knows about your pet philosopher /psychoanalyst/armchair ranter. I find that if depth can be achieved in the K debate that it can turn into a very educational event, but when people just go through the motions it really bores me.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Since, again, I try to run TAB as hard as I can, framework boils down to who makes a more convincing argument for how I should evaluate the debate best; as an educator I find education to be a convincing reason. I don't think kritics are inherently unfair, but I can be convinced that epistemology over action is a bad policy to advocate.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Finally, an important part of any argument, but kritics in particular, is falsifiability. I feel like this is something not often explored in a debate round, but in particular non-scientific kritics (those not supported by empirical evidence) can often become more of an ideology than an argument. I'm very sympathetic to those that argue empiricism and testability over ideology.

__No plan affs/performance (either side)__ I'll admit, at first I hated the idea, but having judged and watched rounds where this occurs, I've warmed to the idea quite a bit. I find it an interesting tactical struggle. I find framework that works in the aff's favor hilarious and I will take it as such; for example, arguing to now allow an exclusion Aff (they are excluding us) is a sure fire way to claim you are excluding them, and it supports their argument. This can be botched by the Aff, of course, but I find that kind of internal self-consistency very convincing. The other arguments I find convincing are doubling down against the performance team; in essence, clash. I vastly prefer this to the framework debate. That being said, framework/rules have an important place in debate, and I will listen to a framework discussion that stays internally consistent. But that is not enough to save you from the combined attack of framework/argument of a performance team; you'll have to convince me of why I shouldn't be ever voting for them, and why I shouldn't vote on their terms.

__Paperless__

1. Do it right or don't do it at all, and bring a viewing computer.2. Prep stops when the flashdrive leaves the computer.3. Just because they have your cards doesn't mean you can mumble your speech into your computer and just assume they'll follow along. Speak like they DON'T have your speech in front of them. Because I probably don't. __Speaker points/Decorum__ - I'm from a time when speaker points were actually calculated on something. Unfortunately, that time has passed. I run somewhere between 26-30. Please don't scream, it both hurts my ears and makes it harder for me to concentrate on paying attention to your arguments. The more mistakes/cheap stuff/actively antagonistic behavior you exhibit, the lower your score goes. Debate is for telling the other person they are wrong, not that they are a bad person.