Lee,+Shawn

Updated for Alta 2016 - I debate at Dartmouth and coach Camas HS.

The more I talk about debate with John Turner, the more I find myself thinking about debate like him. Probably worth looking at his philosophy.

1) spin and explanation will be heavily rewarded. Smart analytics get huge brownie points 2) tech over truth, but with consideration for ridiculousness. Example: Drop 2nc aspec, and I will vote neg. Give 10 seconds of blippy answers to an equally blippy new affs bad, and I’ll probably won’t look at that sheet again. 3) be nice and have fun! Competitiveness and compassion will be perceived favorably, but unnecessary aggression and hostility will be perceived otherwise.
 * General**

-Slow down and explain more. These debates can be very interesting, but need to be nuanced. Your explanation of positional competition will have to be slower and more fleshed out than your 1AR uniqueness dump. -No reverse voting issues, ever.
 * Theory**

-I'm usually more persuaded by limits than by ground arguments. -"Framework" should always be T
 * Topicality**

-"uniqueness is determined by direction of the link" is a pretty tough sell. -I'm pretty open to defensive arguments here. -Risk of disad (or affirmative) is not determined by abstract discussion of the impact but the internal link chain as well. Also risk comparison should start early -Quality of evidence>quantity
 * DA/CP stuff**

-Debating these like a CP/DA is probably a mistake -Cross-examination is important here. A lot of discussions of alternatives devolve into abstract discussions of texts because nobody will explain what the permutation or the alternative actually look like. -Phrasing
 * K stuff**

-Qualifications are important
 * Evidence comparisons**
 * -**These should start early and be more sophisticated than "x author is terrible"

If you want to debate in college at all, please stay around after the debate to talk to me about Dartmouth :)