Evans,+Kirk

Kirk Evans St. Stephen’s UT-Austin

I like big picture thinking and good stories. Debate should not be an incoherent stream of random arguments (unless you’re performing surrealist montage), but a warranted narrative that compels my ballot. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fast and technical—I would welcome that. But technique for technique’s sake is ultimately off-putting. Because of my preference for big pictures, I tend to start with the question of “what is most important?,” and then figure out who’s winning those arguments, as opposed to diving into the flow and resolving all of the details of the debate first. I like theory, but hate most theory debates. If you want to win theory, then once again your arguments need to be transformed into some larger story. I rebel against the adjudication of debates where two teams just dump their theory blocks on me. Counterplans: I lean neg on the legitimacy of counterplans, and aff on most competition questions. Disads: Impact calculus that wasn't just a rote recitation of probability/magnitude/timeframe would be nice. Kritiks: I like them occasionally and vote for them often. Topicality. I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of most Topicality arguments, but nonetheless find myself voting neg more often than not if the aff interpretation sucks. Kritikal Affs: These debates are often about whose impact is most important. Often resolution of this question requires me to evaluate the formal aspects of debate. In other words, What are the impacts to various forms of debating?

Finally, please do not access the internet during the course of the debate.