Kimberley,+Kason

Kason Kimberley Director, Dallas UDL

High school: Whitehouse High School, 2003 College: University of Chicago, 2007


 * Speed:** I'm about an 8.


 * Topicality:** To vote on it I need a specific and well-articulated reason why the Topicality violation of the aff precludes all other means of attack available for the reasonably well-prepared negative. In other words, if you have an otherwise tractable set of negative issues please do not throw topicality in with it as just another issue among many.


 * Source-verification and evidence requesting:** I do this a lot. I will not do the opposing team's source indicts for them but I will frequently ask to see your evidence to make sure it says what you say it does.


 * Performative debate:** It will take you too long to explain what you are doing for me to take it seriously. Don't waste your time.

Also, 9 times out of 10 I won't listen to an abuse claim.
 * Theory:** I view all debate through the lens of competing analytic frameworks. I think that this is an underappreciated and underanalyzed facet of debate in that debate is methodologically heterodox. The concepts underlying your arguments may be from classical economics one minute and the historiography of justice movements the next. I have always found debates that recognize this uncomfortable blending of methodological assumptions to be much richer than those that do not explore the origins of various sources of argumentation. So while I'm certainly appreciative of mainline "theory" debates regarding the purposes and methods of debate, I see it as one framework debate among many and will rate highly attempts to engage with the methodologies of opposing sources.


 * CPs:** Net benefits, Net benefits, Net benefits.


 * Drops:** Do not inherently mean anything. If you want me to pay attention to a drop you need to impact it in terms of the flow and note for me the responses that the drop closes off in later speeches.


 * Advocacy:** I do not believe that debate ballots have any appreciable power at changing the world. I do not view change potential as a voter. To win this argument, you need to convince me that the ballot contributes to structural and substantive change, not attitudinal change.