Hausrath,+Bary

Name: Bary Hausrath Institution: University of Richmond Position: Assistant Coach Years coaching: 7 (as of Fall 09)

A bit about me: I am a lawyer in Richmond, and I have coached debate at U of R since 2002. I debated for four years at GMU (policy all the way). I am a fan of argument and I love inter-collegiate policy debate. That's why I keep doing it year after year even though it doesn't pay worth a damn...

My one rule: this is an activity that can be educational and fun. Being unethical, discriminatory or an asshole tends to defeat both purposes, so play nice. This is akin to licensure and professionalism in the real world, so I take it very seriously. I have nuked and entirely reserve the right to nuke speaker points to whatever extent I deem necessary for conduct in my presence that violates this simple rule. It is possible to be an effective advocate and a courteous (and if you're lucky, good-humored) competitor.

Here are some predispositions I have, as well as a few tips for earning better speaker points (if that’s your aim). Generally, though, do what you want to do. This is your debate, not mine (don’t let the fact that I’m from d-7 fool you).

Framework: I am really freaking tired of STUPID FRAMEWORK DEBATES! The false dichotomy between policy and criticism is an unfortunate development in this activity, and debaters who tell me how to bridge the gap without disregarding the other team's positions will get better speaks. I am not fond of pre/post-fiat distinctions that artificially separate thought, speech, and action. I’ve grown very tired of debates resolving to fiat good-bad (or we get our aff/policy/K/whatever and none of your stuff matters): an aff can be a good idea and a bad idea on multiple levels at the same time. Framework needs to be well-articulated, but that does not mean you need to spend a ton of time on it. Framework is only one piece of the puzzle – I prefer to vote on substance.

Theory and the flow generally: I do not think that I have any particular predisposition toward or against any particular brand of cp or theoretical objection, but beware – a proliferation of voting issues will result in sympathetic leeway on the line-by-line for the other team. A coherent, impacted interpretation/story is better than a bunch of line-by-line wins that don’t mean much in the big picture. On the other hand, I’m somewhat flowgocentric, so don’t be lazy on the line-by-line: if you drop a clearly labeled, articulated voter without excuse, you will lose.

Evidence: It’s good, but not necessary. Reading and talking about your opponents evidence in the form of argument (not just ad hom) is sadly becoming a lost art. That said, I don’t read cards unless you make me because I presume all evidence is ethical and says what it was tagged unless and until challenged or if it is glaringly obvious from hearing the card read that it is a paragraph-long tag and one sentence of card text. I only read evidence to determine the weight I will give it (and the dependent argument) in the round. If that determination is unnecessary, I won't make it. On the other hand, evidence comparison will get you better speaker points, and can make or break a round-winning argument. I won’t do a bunch of cross-application and other work the work for you just because you were lazy. If you have a lot of evidence from one author, clearly delineate which one you mean. If I cannot read the entire text of your card, including parts you don't read due to 5 point or whatever font, and the content of that text is challenged, do not expect me to give it _any_ weight in the round. Tip: I do not usually catch author names when cards are read because debaters tend to spew or breathe through them, so in the line by line please use the argument # or a one or two word descriptor of the argument as well as the author name when responding to or extending a card.

Topicality: I wish more teams would go for it well. Don’t do it half-assed, and don’t do it just because I wrote that I like it. If you don’t meet the threshold for every element of the T debate, I won’t vote on it even if I believe the aff isn't really topical. I think it’s reasonable to ask have for a plan or some textual/stable reduction of your advocacy.

Topic-specific and Stylistic whatnot: Do what you do, but PLEASE give me some topic-specific debates! WHERE, OH WHERE HAVE THOSE CASE DEBATES GONE??? I am growing tired of framework debates and the same stupid disads and ks that don't mean any more or less on this topic than any other... (Hint: I like good surprises in the form of creative arguments).