Maloney,+Joe


 * Background:** I debated for 4 years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School and currently coach for Iowa City High School. I have heard 60+ rounds on the poverty topic.


 * General Information:** I think debate should be about the debaters and not the arguments. You should not worry about my predispositions towards an argument when going for it. If you are smart and compelling about the argument, I will vote for you. That said, I will list some of my observations regarding particular arguments on this topic below.


 * Topicality**: I have not voted Neg on Topicality that often on this topic. Maybe that is because teams have a difficult time of finding an interpretation of social services that isn't completely arbitrary. I have also found that the Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability Debate has become quite hollow. I understand that both teams will make their claims on these questions, but there needs to be an extra step where these questions of Topicality Framework are used to impact your interpretation. Absent this analysis, I will default to determining which interpertation sets the best limit for debate.


 * Counterplans**: I think the states can do most of the Affs on this topic. Therefore, if you are Aff make sure to articulate a federal key warrant that makes sense. This will give you more leverage on the solvency deficit debate as well as the perm debate.

1.) If you are neg, use Cross-X to set up and explain your link. 2.) The argument, "The Alt Solves the Aff" is annoying and usually never gets explained. If you want me to believe that the Alt can solve the Aff explain to me how that happens and what that world looks like. 3.) If you are Aff, don't forget to weigh your advantages against the K. It amazes how many times in a K debate the Aff just forgets about their affirmative.
 * Kritiks:** My opinions probably don't differ from most judges on the K. I will add a few tips for debating the K in front of me:


 * Disads:** Make sure you give equal time to all three parts of the argument. If you are winning a link, but don't explain the impact it is hard for me to determine what that means in the context of the debate. I enjoy a good politics debate. I also think that uniqueness is the most important aspect of a solid politics debate. Please don't overlook that.


 * Theory:** There must be a compelling abuse story for me to vote on Theory. Just because a theory argument is dropped doesn't mean you automatically win the debate. You still need to impact and explain the argument as well as point to specific instances of abuse. Instances of conditionality or multple conditional worlds are where I would most likely vote on theory if I have to do so.


 * Cross-X:** This is probably the most overlooked aspect of debate. If you are able to grant credibility to your arguments in cross-x, that could be a deciding factor in my mind when I have to decide who wins a certain claim. I feel like a poor cross-x, where you allow the other team to speak the entire time, could be detrimental to your credibility.

1.) When you say you are finished with prep time, I expect you to start giving an order. Do not say you are finished with prep time and then expect to organize your flows or to grab evidence from the other team. 2.) Please use 2AC numbered order in your speeches -- the debate goes much smoother when all you have to do is reference an argument number rather than repeat an argument that has already been made.
 * Pet Peeves:**


 * Final Comments:** I hope this helps. Like I said, the debate should be about you, not me.