Huot,+Brian

 I debated for 6 years at the University of Louisville in what would be dubbed a “performance” style of debate. I expressly analyzed my identity and the privileges afforded me and used that as a starting point for argumentation. I debated using the 3-tier methodology (academic, organic, personal experience) and spoke relatively slowly. To clarify, I despise high-speed debate. Having said that, I don’t think there is any one right way to debate. We’re all in this activity for different reasons, we all have different experiences with debate, and we all know how to win in different ways. Respect your opponents, respect me, and I’ll respect you. So what’s that mean? Debate how you love to debate and how you think you debate the best. I hope those are the same thing for you. But if your opponent has a reasonable request, grant it. And most importantly, recognize that their method of debate is still debate. This means framework arguments should be very specific. I highly doubt the other team is what your authors are talking about, but if they are you should be able to articulate the links far beyond "you didn't read a plan." I do not have experience debating plan-focused/traditional/”right”/whatever-you-want-to-call-it debate but that doesn’t mean that I will sigh, roll my eyes, and take a nap if that’s what you want the round to be. Make your links clear and specific, your impacts feasible, and give me lots of analysis. That’s just good debate. Topicality can be a voting issue, but I give the affirmative a LOT of leeway. So long as they can adequately explain their decision to move away from the resolution, I’d rather not hear about T after the 2AC. That being said, I prefer that an aff have at least a relation to the topic area. Ks and performances should be grounded in reality. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for high theory, but you need to be able to explain it to me in terms of the real world and what it might or might not mean for people. Lots of examples and analysis. This also means your alt should probably be more substantive than “say no to X” or “embrace Y”. I also prefer something better than a root cause story. Root causes are far too simplistic and leave us running around in circles. We're all better than that. I think fiat is stupid. Discussing the merits of a proposal is useless if there's no chance that the proposal will be enacted. If something must change to enact the proposal, then debate it out, but don't just ignore it. Having said that, if you both agree to utilize fiat, I'm along for the ride. Perms or counterplans of a methodology/performance should actually DO the methodology/performance. Oh, and solve for the original as well. Speed is bad, mmkay? If you’re going too fast, I will stop flowing. You will be able to tell that I have stopped flowing. Watch me for cues and adjust your pace accordingly. If you're unsure, err on the side of slower and clearer. Let’s show each other some respect. Let’s have some fun. And let’s debate.