Harris,+Spencer

Spencer Harris-Head Coach Greenwood Laboratory School 10 years experience My optimal debate round is disad/case or disad/counterplan. That being said, here are my thoughts on specific issues: Topicality-I like it. Prefer to think of the argument as competing interpretations but can be moved from this given the proper work. I’d like to hear at least a minimal amount of evidence for the interpretation debate, and also tend to be more in favor of limits claims than other standards debate. Theory-I generally think conditionality is okay, but again, I can be persuaded otherwise. I do not enjoy lengthy, blippy theory debates and have a tendency to get lost (I’ll admit this is partially because I don’t care for it) so engage in these at your own peril. I’m not saying I won’t listen to it, I’m just saying that if you plan on making it a large part of your rebuttal strategy you should be as clear as possible as early as possible (clear both in enunciation and argumentation). Disads-I’m a fan. I prefer to hear specific link scenarios with good uniqueness but I understand those can be hard to come by so a generic disad with good development in the block will suffice. Also, I would like some case defense or a counterplan along with the disad. Case-I like to hear it. I think that smart defensive arguments on the aff plus some disad is one of the best ways to win a debate round. Generic impact defense is okay but I would love some specific solvency arguments. Smart turns make for enjoyable debates and I firmly believe that negative teams would do themselves a favor if they spent less time reading Zizek and more time reading about affirmatives. Counterplans-Cool. Definitely more of a fan of the smart pic than the generic counterplan but will listen to both. K’s-If you read my thoughts on case debate you know where this is going. It’s not that I won’t vote for them or haven’t (I think I have more than I’d like to admit), it’s that I prefer not to hear them. Fair warning: I tend to zone out during lengthy K debates. Does that make me a bad judge? It would if I didn’t admit it. But I did. Problem solved. Having said that, I believe that framework isn’t a reason the aff wins, it’s why you get to weigh your impacts against the K. The neg needs a good defense of why most of the generic perms don’t work and should be able to defend the alt as more than just reject the aff. Also, I generally think debate is good and should not go away, so do with that what you want. Speed is fine-I’ll yell clear up to three times, if things haven’t gotten better after that, I don’t feel the need to continue to listen. I like when people are funny (your speaker points like it as well) and I am quick to dock points if you are rude. Have fun, be nice, and enjoy debating.