Bryan,+Amanda

Amanda Bryan Debated LD 4 years – Coon Rapids High School, Minnesota Coached LD 5 years – Apple Valley, Robbinsdale Armstrong, Blaine High Schools.

Standards. I like to hear established burdens. Tell me what you need to do to win the round and the specific arguments you are extending in order to do that, whether you call it a criterion or not. It’s best if you start each speech off like this. Also, tell me what your opponent needs to do and why she’s failing to do this. They don’t need to be criteria, burdens are fine but you (of course) have to give me some evaluative mechanism to judge impacts.

As an aside, I have grown to hate value debate. 99% of the time, your values will be the same so don’t worry about it. In the 1% of the rounds that are left, 99% of those will be values that use different words to describe the same concept. In those rounds, do your best to spend as little time as possible agreeing on what the values mean. Only in the 1% of those rounds that are left should you ever debate them.

Theory. I have and will vote on theory arguments if your opponent is doing something truly abusive. Just be sure it is properly constructed and well-explained. A compelling case that there is a violation and why it should be a voter is required before I will pull the trigger on theory because claiming a theory violation is a no-risk argument for the accuser and a must-win for the accusee. Potential abuse stories are NOT compelling to me. Don’t make them. I also really dislike Ks of the activity. It is really hard to convince me that you should win a debate round with a “debate is bad” argument without it being a performative contradiction. I am also not OK with mislabeled a prioris, multiple conditional counterplans, or arguments that allow you to shift your advocacy after the constructives.

I would keep your critical and skeptical argumentation in the box if I were you. I have read most of these authors and did not understand them when I read them and the ones I did understand, I didn’t like much. If you decide to ignore this advice, I am pretty much of the belief that any moral theory you ask me to endorse with my ballot must be able to condemn very obvious atrocities. Ask yourself “at its logical extreme, would this case condemn the Holocaust?” If the answer is no, put the case back in your expando. At the end of the day, we have to be human beings as well as debaters. Don’t run things you don’t believe.

I am a much bigger fan of policy comparison debates. Empirical impacts are great as are CPs, DAs and even the occasionally (well explained) PIC. I have a pretty extensive statistics background and I LOVE methodology debates. They will make me happy and making me happy is a good way to balloon your speaker points. Don’t be afraid of methodology debates when you are in a really empirical round but also make sure you do them well. “I have the methodology on my laptop and my opponent does not so my methodology is better” is not the way you want to go.

Speed. I rarely have a problem with speed and if I do, I will yell clear. If I still can’t understand you, I will yell clear again. If I STILL can’t understand you, I will likely put my pen down and glare at you. But like I said, rarely have I ever had to yell it the first time. You know how fast you can go and still be clear. Don’t try to go too far beyond that and we’ll be fine.

The end of the 2NR and the 2AR should be prioritization of the arguments and clarification of the main issues of the round. Write my ballot for me. Clearly tell me where you are winning and where I should vote. DO NOT power through the line-by-line at the end of the round! 2-3 well-developed reasons to vote for you are best. This is where the burden comes in. The 2-3 well developed arguments should all be explained in terms of how they help you meet your burden. This is also the time where you tell me how your opponent hasn’t met theirs. I am much more likely to vote on substantive issues in the round than I am on a nit-picky drop on the flow anyway.

I am a bit of a point-fairy and your speaker points will average about a 28. While speaks should be based on the quality of your argumentation, show respect to your opponent and for the activity. I will tank your speaker points if you do not. I also have never dropped a debater for abusive conduct, but reserve the right to do so.