Basler,David


 * POLICY PARADIGM FOR DAVID BASLER (Updated 9.19.17)**
 * POLICY DEBATE COACH AT WDM VALLEY**

Speed is OK. T, theory, Ks and K Affs OK No prep time for flashing. Be kind to your opponents, your partner and the judge. I will not be on Facebook during c/x.
 * __A QUICK SUMMARY__** (if you are accessing this on your iPhone as the round is starting):

//"Clearly, some philosophies aren't for all people. And that's my new philosophy!" -// Sally Brown, //You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown, 2012//


 * I BE ME.** I have been a high school policy debate coach for the last eight years, mostly at West Des Moines Valley (2010-2015, 2016-2018) and also at Dowling Catholic (2015-16). I typically judge between 70-100 policy rounds a year. I was a successful CEDA debater in college, but I did have a wicked mullet so that could explain the success. I stay familiar with the arguments run by top regional and national teams. Some of them even pref me.


 * U BE U.** What kind of arguments do I like? I enjoyed watching Michael Jordan the basketball player more than Michael Jordan the baseball player. I want to see you do what you do best. My preferences in regard to certain arguments should not matter. I try to come into each round with no position on what the voting issues should be, although I do still believe in negative presumption. I also believe you can still rock in America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB3kQZJ2aLw


 * F/WORK.** When it comes to framework, I will listen to arguments in support of any position, but if neither team wins the framework debate I will default to the question on the ballot- "I believe the better debating was done by ..." I will reject framework in favor of a K aff when the affirmative team gives me the more persuasive reasons why having a plan text, defending the state, etc. is bad. I will vote against a K aff on framework when the negative team gives me the more persuasive reasons why not having a plan text, not defending the state, etc. is bad. **I will vote for teams that do not have plan texts and I will also vote against them.**

//"Laughter is not at all a bad beginning for a friendship, and it is by far the best ending for one." -// Oscar Wilde, //The Picture of Dorian Gray,// 1890


 * MAKE ME LAUGH, GET GOOD SPEAKS.** I really enjoy creative arguments. I appreciate humor. I respect debaters who can speak both quickly and clearly. I used to love doing c/x and I still love hearing a good c/x. I like debaters with cool nicknames like "Q" or "DanBan." I also like the words "kitchenette" and "flume."


 * POLICY TEAMS.** Heg good. Heg bad. The IT department at your school reads your email, so they know how you really feel, but I am cool with whatever. Because I am kind of a political junkie I love a good politics disad but that doesn't mean your link chain can stink.


 * WHAT ABOUT THE K?** Bring it. Some of my absolute favorite debates I have judged have been K debates. However, reading dense philosophical texts at 350 words per minute is not helpful to comprehension. You know what else is almost always **not helpful** to comprehension? **Super long taglines that are impossible to flow and lengthy overviews.** **Do it on the line-by-line.** I would say I have heard just about everything but I am most familiar with economic theory, identity arguments, and Ks of consumption, technology and consumerism. I am less familiar with psychoanalysis but will always vote for stuff I think is persuasive (which means you just need to make me understand it). I am not a teacher (I am a lawyer) so I am only "in the literature" as a debate coach whose teams often gravitate toward and read Ks.

As I try not to intervene as a judge, I am not going to give you the benefit of everything I know about a particular philosopher, theory argument or a particular policy option. You always need to explain your arguments.


 * PERFORMANCE/"PROJECT"/NON-TRADITIONAL TEAMS.** Sure. It is your community. I like the idea that you get to write the rules. Dance, sing or drum like there is nobody watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E

//"I wanna go fast."//- Ricky Bobby, //Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,// 2006


 * SPEED.** If you are clear, I will be able to flow you. However, though speaking quickly has become a community norm in policy debate, debate is still fundamentally about the quality of your advocacy and communication. I think it is my job as a judge to say who was winning when time expired. This means I will rarely call for cards unless there is a disagreement over what the card says or I don't know how else to decide the debate.


 * THEORY.** I am often fine with multiple conditional arguments, 50 state fiat, etc. I am also frequently not fine with it. Win offense to win your theory argument. Recall that it is harder for me to flow 8 points of theory than two pieces of tagged evidence and please slow down.Strategic use of theory is smart because it almost always takes more time to answer the argument than it does to make it, however, this also means I am going to cut the other team some slack in making their answers and **evidence of actual in-round abuse** is the easiest way to get me to vote on theory.


 * PREP.** I do not require a team to use prep time to flash their speech to the other team. Don't steal prep time while the other team is flashing you their arguments. Also, if you still need to re-order all of your papers when you get up to the podium, you are still prepping.

"//Gretchen, I'm sorry I laughed at you that time you got diarrhea at Barnes & Nobles.//" - Karen Smith, //Mean Girls//, 2004


 * MEAN PEOPLE SUCK.** Even though I believe the sarcastic slow-clap to be an underutilized method of cross-ex, I expect you to be respectful and courteous to your opponents, your partner and to the judge. I can assure you that the best advocates out in the real world (whether they are trial attorneys, lobbyists, politicians, activists, writers, Comedy Central talk show hosts, etc.) understand the difference between vigorous disagreement in a debate forum and mutual respect and even admiration outside of that forum. I believe in a debate round we should all strive to disagree agreeably, and as soon as the round is over the disagreement should end. This is especially true given the divisive nature of modern day political rhetoric and/or many people's strong feelings about Taylor Swift.


 * TECH OR TRUTH?** If something is totally counter-intuitive and empirically false, telling me that (you have to speak the words) is probably enough to defeat an argument. However, I also like it when people take counter-intuitive positions and explain why they are true, even if our first instinct is to reject them. But yeah...try not to drop shtuff.


 * WELL DONE, YOUNG PADAWAN.** I have nothing but respect for young people who choose to use their free time developing their critical thinking skills and engaging in an academic exercise like debate. It will serve you well in life, whatever you choose to do, and this is why I place such a high value on the activity. I promise you I will do my best to be fair, constructive, encouraging and engaged. Hopefully that is all you would want from a judge. That and, during the winter, copious amounts of facial hair.