White,+Jeffrey

i debated four years in high school at mitchell high school in mitchell, south dakota (home of the world's only corn palace). i now debate policy at liberty university. in addition to working at the liberty debate institute last summer, i have judged eight rounds on this topic.

stylistically: don't tagline debate-- i'm probably not extending if you're just saying "extend." be clear-- i'm flowing your cards, even your one sentence elections links. don't read these. make the round fun. i give props for jokes, jabs, sarcasm, and killer cross-ex. they're not flowed-- but they sure as heck are perceived.

i appreciate smart decisions. i admire teams kicking disads and consolidating in the block and like teams that straight turn a disad in the 1ar even better. i want to see teams interact in a way that demonstrates a knowledge of not only the arguments, but the way the arguments interact with one another.

i think that any debate can be recovered/resurrected in the 2nr/2ar. that being said, i understand decisions to do whatever it takes to get back into the game into these speeches. i admire strategic bravery-- do it. 2nr/2ar args are the only args that will be voted on, and i need to be able to draw a line between the 1ar and the 2ar unless the new arg is justified.

as for specific issues:

topicality/procedurals-- not crazy about procedurals, but if a team sits on one in the block, and the aff underestimates it, okay. i prefer in-round abuse, but as long as the impacts of the topicality disad are articulated, these args are viable. 2nr needs to be only t unless the t is dropped. i also lean towards multiple conditional alternatives bad and performative contradictions bad.

case-- please. i prefer line by line rather than goofy prepped blocks to moot 4 minutes of the 1nc in 30 seconds. tell me how to vote on these args and why they matter.

cp-- anything goes, but that also means any theory goes. if you watch me, you'll probably get a good indication of how viable the arg is.

k-- limit the blocks. 2nc should include massive articulation of the links in the 1ac, citing the aff ev. generally, generic perms won't get you very far-- krishna needs to be characterized as a lot more than "coalitions are key." 2nr needs external impact, answers to the perm, and an alt. generally not crazy about the k functioning as a disad absent the alt-- affs should mention this isn't legit.

that amorphous "performance" critter-- i've read irony, narratives, personal advocacies, and played music. there needs to be a reason for it, and you need to have a defense of it within the framework of the round.

all that being said, i'm really not concerned with the brand of argument you read. any argument can be read well, i think, and any argument can be read really, really, really poorly. i suppose that's up to you.