Weston,+Dave


 * Updated as of Greenhill 2014***

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier High School outside of Chicago, IL. Prior to working at New Trier, I was the Director of Debate/Head Coach at Cathedral Prep in Erie, Pa for four years. Before coaching I debated for three years at the University of Pittsburgh and four years at Cathedral Prep in high school.

Here are some insights into the way I tend to evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round, so if you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.


 * Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to a negative argument.


 * I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes it difficult for me to understand the connection between arguments.


 * Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.


 * Avoid ad hominem attacks. I would prefer that students attack their opponent's arguments as opposed to their opponent. General rudeness will probably cost you speaker points.


 * Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

__*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative__ - I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My personal preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm that is occurring and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

__*Kritik debates__ - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in a negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy.


 * __Theory__ - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I find myself rarely voting for "conditionality bad." I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative.

__*CP's__ CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."


 * __Case__ - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

__Other things__
 * If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. Chances are if I am preferred and judge your debate, I will be unhappy and you will be unhappy as well.
 * Prep time - it stops when your jump drive leaves the computer or your email with speech document is sent.