Webb,David+(UT)

//__**I'm a debater at UT-Austin.**__//

__**Arguments I hate:**__

time-cube: I'm sorry, Gene Ray is a racist, homophobic, paranoid-schizophrenic who believes all teachers should be shot. Also a cube has 6 sides, not 4; I don't care if I link.

__**Arguments I Love:**__

Consult Chuck-Norris: Hilarious (you may earn speaks for this)

__**Getting serious:**__
- Cap K's: Not a huge fan; will vote on it, just prefer that the K addresses the issue of class and how the aff reciprocates these issues; I hate it when people run big impacts on cap, like for example reading a nuclear war impact to cap; It is kind of difficult for me to draw a line from inter-class conflict to nuclear war... I probably err aff in the cases of these generic three card cap shells that aren't great to begin with, i.e. Zizek and Daly, Herod 04, etc... Also If your going to make these root cause arguments I'm not sure that class conflict causes a decline in hegemony; maybe if you talk about how neoliberal imperialism functions you can draw that line, but reading a card that says "Capitalism is the root cause" is not going to earn my sympathy. The negative HAS to win the alternative; if they don't I don't vote on cap, period. Think your alternative out well.

- Any other K: Not all K's need to have an alternative. Don't treat an alternative like a counter plan with a critical disad attached to it. Alternatives should be an ideological change I should endorse; if the alternative is rejection, explain why I should reject. I am fairly familiar with the literature base; if you are running a non-mainstream K you probably need to do a better job explaining the K. I am a huge fan of simplicity; a lot of K debaters write tags as if they are trying to win a poetry contest; if you can't explain the K in simple terms without debate jargon your chances of winning get exponentially smaller. I do enjoy critical debate more than policy debate.

- Policy arguments: I prefer smaller systemic impacts to large, very low probability scenarios. example: Global warming outweighs nuclear war because no matter how much evidence you read, nuclear war probably still won't happen. Sorry Khalizad. obviously impact calculus should be done; I prefer a weight on probability; throw out multiple internal links. etc.. Counterplans should probably solve the aff... D/A's should have __**specific**__ links to the 1AC (i.e. opening relations with China in space development DIRECTLY causes a tank in Russian-US relations or whatever). Also, Disads should be intrinsic to the 1AC (i.e. like the example above, a result of the action of the 1AC). To clarify, diads that link by saying "by doing this, we don't get to do something else" are not intrinsic to the aff because there isn't anything really stopping us from doing something else (i.e. in another debate round we could FIAT doing that something else). Overall I tend to believe that policy-style debate is riddled with contradictions and exaggerations; any team that is able to do policy style debate in a manner where they don't spit off 7 extinction scenarios if we don't give NASA more $$$ will get much higher speaks; whereas teams that do run ridiculously stupid policy affs/disads/CP's will probably not get as high speaks. I just think that having 7 extinction scenarios if the plan doesn't pass is kind of silly.

-Framework debates (T/theory included):
 * T: Will vote on this; obviously these are difficult to flow when people spread through them; if you go for T, you HAVE to SLOW DOWN. My threshold for T is neither high nor low; it just depends on the Aff; obvi some affs are more T than others.

Theory: Won't vote on cheap shot theory: multiple perms are never a voter; timeframe perms are not a vote; Severance and Intrinsic perms are probably a reason to reject that argument but they Aren't a voter. Sorry. Other theory arguments are debatable.

Framework: I will be sympathetic to FW vrs an extremely Critical aff without a plan. If it is a Quasi-critical aff I will be less sympathetic; if it is a neg K I won't be sympathetic at all.

-Housekeeping: If you are paperless, you __**WILL**__ accommodate the other team. You WILL **__ACCOMMODATE__** the other team. That means if they don't have a laptop you provide a viewing laptop. If you don't have a viewing laptop then you flash your cards to them or provide them with one of your laptops.

-Speed: **__Be clear.__**

-Clarity: __**BE CLEAR.**__