Clifford,+Jimmy

I'm currently a debater at the University of Kansas.

Debate is not a question of educational truth, it’s a game played by some kids who like to have fun and/or want to win. That being said, tech is more important than truth. I also think that a most debates are won based on the work debaters do outside of debates. As such, I will work hard to make an objective decision just as you work hard on debate.

Topicality – If your aff does not defend the implementation of your plan, then you must prove why the resolution is insufficient to talk about your argument. Likewise, to the negative, I'm usually persuaded by a "topical version of your aff" type of argument. I do not think it takes an entire 2NR to win a topicality debate and spending time on other arguments does not determine whether or not topicality is a voting issue. Reading a case all year long does not make it more topical at the end of the year. I tend to think topicality is a question of competing interpretations. The best T debaters will make arguments why their standards are more important or interact with the opposition’s standards. Specification arguments are generally stupid, but if asked, you should specify.

Disads – I like them. You should read them. You should make impact comparisons and disad turns the case arguments. On the affirmative, you should make sure to answer turns case arguments. I generally default to an offense/defense view of disads, but can be convinced that there is “zero risk,” just know that it will require a crush on an argument or a conceded argument.

Counterplans – I lean negative on most theory questions. PICs are okay, conditionality is good, etc. I can be persuaded otherwise, but it’s an uphill battle. I think that the affirmative should read counterplan specific theory rather than simply conditionality bad(e.g. PICs bad, 50 state fiat bad, etc...). Conditionality has become almost completely acceptable in the community. Specific counterplans are better than generic counterplans. Solvency advocate is an arbitrary standard – you should just have a defense of your counterplan. If that means saying solvency advocates are bad, go for it. Your counterplan should solve the case or at least get you somewhere in the debate – like a uniqueness counterplan, otherwise you’re in trouble.

Critiques –I think that a good negative strategy will test the affirmative from a multitude of standpoints; however that does not mean you should read a K just to read one. You should read a K as one, something to go for in the 2nr, or two to throw a smoke screen for the affirmative. If the neg is going to read a K, likewise for the aff, you should be able to explain your argument beyond the buzzwords of your author. Two quick things: for affs, you will often lose K debates because you have conceded a reason the K comes first, you will often win them because your case outweighs and the alternative doesn’t solve the case. For negatives, you will often lose because the case outweighs and your alternative doesn’t solve. You should recognize that your alternative is likely ridiculous and overcome that barrier – I’m sorry, but I just don’t think we can imagine away certain things. However, you will often win if you can win a framing argument about why the K comes first or why the affirmative is a lie.

Final Thoughts – I like Humor in debate rounds a lot. Humor does not include ad hom attacks. I dislike people who steal prep time and/or constantly start/stop prep time. Arguments include a claim and a warrant. Clipping cards is not ok and will likely cost you the debate if you’re caught. I would be willing to make it a voting issue if a team lies during their pre-round disclosure. Finally, sometimes it might be necessary to scrap the 1NC if you mess it up and read a new strategy in the 2NC, yes that means reading new arguments, but in the end it's respectable to see someone realize they are going to lose if they don't do something drastic.