Randall,+Dana

Dana Randall Director of Debate Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

I have coached policy debate for just shy of a decade. In that time I have coached teams at regional/local tournaments as well as to late elimination rounds at every major national tournament.

I believe debate is a unique academic activity. I believe the merits of switch side debate and the in round clash this activity affords mean that it is usually a greater source of education for students then most of their academic courses. I believe that in order to fully realize the merits of this activity debaters should engage in discussions that stem from the resolution. The affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Debaters should disclose previously read positions fully. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.

I ask for speech documents and follow along. Unfortunately there have been many card clipping accusations in debate lately. I read along because I want to prevent this from happening. I also think it is very difficult to debate and read along so I want you to focus on the debate you have prepared so diligently for.

I operate from the assumption that you have worked hard to be here and you want to get the most out of this experience. I take my responsibilities as a judge very seriously. I watch my debaters work for hours every week, give up their summers, family time, social lives, and every other extracurricular activity to get the most out of their debate careers. I am listening to what you have to say. I will do my best to take my time and render as thorough and thoughtful a decision as possible.

I have voted for every argument ever read in this activity at some point. I will make my decision based on what transpires in the debate even if it is physically painful for me.

My defaults: Topicality is a question of competing interpretations. BUT just because an interpretation is the most limiting -- if it is not supported by the best evidence on this flow those limits are most likely unpredictable. Topicality debates are becoming less and less evidence based. I recognize that is in part due to this topic -- but still don't hear affirmatives making a big enough deal out of this trend given the low quality of negative evidence.

The risk of an advantage and a disadvantage can be reduced to zero. Debates where the negative does not attempt to do this to case advantages are very frustrating as many affirmatives are held together with little more than spit and glue. Extending disadvantages that out-weigh and turn the case that has been mitigated as we just discussed is the type of debate I most enjoy adjudicating.

Kritiks are not intrinsic. There may be a whole lotta bad neoliberalism out there but if the affirmative can demonstrate that neoliberalism is not always bad I can do the aff and endorse the non bad neoliberalism -- logical right? More seriously, if the alternative is not feasible then the affirmative limited to some feasible topical action is at an unfair advantage. This means I am left to pit the affirmative against a non-unique case turn and the affirmative is generally ahead.

Theory Conditionality is good -- you can have too much of a good thing. All other theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument not the team. CPs that do not compete off a mandate in the plan text have competition deficiencies.