Camloh,+Pat

Pat Camloh Debater at Clarion University


 * Framework:**

I've debated traditional policy, critical, and somewhat performative affirmatives before, so I am willing to hear any kind of argument. That being said, I am willing to vote on framework if it's argued well. Specific reasons why the other team's framework is bad in a given round, that are sufficiently impacted, help you a lot here. I don't want to watch you read 30 cards from Boggs and Shively or Giroux without any contextual analysis.


 * Politics:**

If I have any biases in policy debate, it's against the Politics DA. I'm going to have a hard time pulling the trigger on the DA if the affirmative has reasonable evidence on uniqueness or the link, unless the negative's story is just way better.


 * T:** I'll vote for it. I'm probably more likely to vote on T than the average bear. If you're going to go for it, you need to demonstrate legitimate abuse either committed by the aff or allowed by the aff's interpretation. You have to both prove that your interpretation is better and that the aff's is bad (or that the aff doesn't meet their own interpretation). TVAs go a long way but are not necessary.


 * K:** Specific links contextual to the affirmative help you a lot. Impacts that mitigate affirmative solvency are really cool too. I'm unlikely to be persuaded by arguments along the lines of "our impact outweighs death".


 * Impact Calculus:** By default I think probability is the most important criterion in evaluating risk (which is why I hate the politics DA). Framing your impacts in terms of probability, rather than talking up how bad the impact will be if it happens, will go a long way. So will talking about how your impacts interact with the narrative of the other team's impacts.


 * Theory:** I lean affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, except one or two conditional worlds. That being said, I am probably going to reject the argument rather than the team if the negative loses the theory debate.


 * Speaker Points:**

If you want them, debate well. Compare things. Compare the warrants of your ev to theirs, compare the scenarios in your advantages to those in their disadvantages, etc. Be strong and confident and maybe a little domineering and pointed in cross-ex, but don't be a bully. Jokes are cool too but don't overdo it. I'll probably give bonus points if I catch a reference to 30 Rock, Seinfeld, or The Office in your speech.

Scale:

30 - flawless 29.5 - I think you should win the top speaker award if you speak like that every round 29 - I think you should get a speaker award if you speak like that every round 28.5 - good enough to clear if you speak like that every round 28 - just about average 27.5 - okay but needs some polish 27 - needs a lot of work sub 27 - you made me mad in round and i will tell you what you did after the round.