Mifflin,+Christopher

I am the Debate Coach at James Madison High School in San Antonio, Texas. I was a four year debater at William Howard Taft High School in San Antonio, Texas where I graduated in 1997. I attended Iowa Debate Camp twice (I guess it didn't take the first time!). I was a Philosophy major at UT so please use your philosophy correctly and ethically.

Burdens: The Aff has the burden of proof and the Neg has the burden of clash. The Aff must prove the resolution true. Neg, in theory has the burden to prove the resolution false, but in practice the Aff burden comes first and so even if the Neg does not meet its burden, I will default neg if the Aff fails to meet its burden. Quite generally I believe the round is for the debaters, but I don't have an anything goes attitude. Arguments must be resolutional (I'll talk about K later). Values are required as an evaluation standard. I usually evaluate the topic as a truth statement (True/False) and any other interpretation must be warranted. Do not change the burdens without an excellent justification. You are not free to change the resolution to make it easier for you to win a round. I reserve the right to reject abusive arguments on face, regardless of whether abuse is complained of by the opponent. This is the only time where I will depart from the line-by-line and intervene. However, I wont vote against you because of abusive arguments. I just won't weigh them.

Value Debate: Aff must have values but neg can do without their own if they're willing to use the values of the aff. Arguments without values just float around in the ether: they cannot be weighed. It is entirely possible that a debater can win the standard debate and lose the round if they don't (or their opponent proves otherwise) show how their arguments are in line with their standards. Alternatively, a debater may also lose their standards but win the round by proving they achieve the standards of the other side. Don't get me wrong, despite being somewhat old school (thank you Dukes and Bailey!) I don't want to hear 45 minutes of debate on the standards. The focus of the round should be exactly what the resolution asks you to debate about: e.g. the subject matter of the resolution. I prefer the focus of the round on the arguments that are weighed by the values on the line-by-line under the standards. A debate that degenerates into a standard debate is usually the result of a bad choice of values.

Theory: Theory is useful to keep everyone in the debatable middle. If you can't link your arguments to the resolution then they are by definition abusive. I, therefore, do not require an abuse story. Theory arguments are a priori.

Speed: Don't spit on me please. Enunciate Cards. Use your voice effectively. Vary rate, tone, intonation, use pauses effectively, etc. Don't hum monotone args at me while gasping for breath. I'm liable to stop flowing and hand you an inhaler. Aff gets more slack, especially in the 1AR.

Kritique: You better have an awesome link to the resolution, otherwise I'll reject it on face. You're given a topic for a reason. It's not a jumping off point. At higher levels I'll cut more slack for K's and accept them and judge on the flow, but don't try to win prelim rounds by confusing your opponent with generic, nonsense, unintelligable postmodern critiques that only the cx coach who wrote it understands (maybe).

No new arguments after the first rebuttals will be accepted.