Wheeler,+Ethan

4 years of Policy Debate experience

Debated for McClintock High School and Millard North High School

And now currently debating for Arizona State University

Generally, I’ll let you read anything. Read the wonky Kritik, or a cheating CP. Just make sure that y’all keep in mind that you’re debating. If you don’t understand your own arguments, then 1) your speaker points will suffer and 2) the argument seems lost to me. Run what you know, not what you think will give you the edge because it’s crazy unpredictable.

I will check cards at the end of a round if I feel that the evidence is spun so much so that the truth behind the claim is lost. You don’t need to read a ton of evidence to prove a point if you have one piece of really good evidence. Quality over quantity type thing.

I won’t stop prep until the flash leaves the computer.

I have never been a fan of spreading. Do it, but for the love of god**__, be clear.__**

__ Case: __

Case is a big deal. Just leave it at that. Don’t drop it and don’t underdo it. Defend it 100%.

__ Theory: __

I do not like theory arguments such as Condo bad, or Reject Aff Alts bad arguments...I don't find them to be persuasive. I also think that the only reason that teams run theory is not because their opponent is actually being unfair, but more because 1) they have nothing better to say and 2) they need their opponent to waste their time on theory instead of making legitimate arguments. Theory debates in my opinion are bland and empirically untrue.

__ Topicality/Framework: __

Much like theory, I do not particularly like T or FW debates more or less because I believe that if a policy affirmative is germane to the topic (i.e. creating some form of ECONOMIC engagement) then they are topical enough for a disad/k to link to it. The same is for critical affirmatives with or without a plan text. As long as the affirmative has something to do with the resolution, then I find them to be reasonably topical under the resolution.

__ CP and DA: __ Read these. I’m definitely more policy based than critical. Make sure you have everything you need to properly run these arguments. I.e. a link for the DA or a strong Net Benefit for the CP.

__ Kritik: __

I am not the most literate in regards to philosophical literature; so, make sure you explain the alternative in such a way that everyone observing will completely understand what you’re talking about. I love hearing a good K though. And I’ve run a lot of Ks. I won’t vote you down as long as there was a good debate on the alternative. All in all, know what you’re talking about and make it good if it’s going to go all the way to the 2NR.