Register,+David

David Register Vermont

Flowing I flow with pen and paper. This means that if your arguments are blippy, there won’t be much on my flow, and your speaker points will not be good. It also means that if you have an extensive overview for a position, you should let me know beforehand, so that my flow doesn’t get crammed together and messy. If you do have an extensive overview, you should ask yourself, “Why am I //not// putting these arguments on the line-by-line?” I’ll be wondering the same thing… If you would like to convince me to not flow it could happen, but then you’re relying on my memory skills alone. If you would like me to use an alternate notetaking method, then you should actually debate in a fashion that works with that form of notetaking. If you revert back to the flow in rebuttals, so do I.

Honesty I like narrow debates with a lot of explanation more than I like broad debates with little explanation. I’m open to most types of arguments, but this is your debate so you should choose what you do best. I don’t like to hear that non-policymaking arguments do not belong in debate rounds, but I fake objectivity because I love the game and what it does for people. I think “Aff choice” begs the question of whether or not the shit you chose is worthwhile. I think you should defend not just your arguments, but also the worldview(s) that ground them. I think if you can’t you’re not very versatile … like an endangered species.

Speaker Points (30 point scale) I’ve become pretty conservative with speaker points. My range is 27-28.5. If you get below a 27 from me, you should do speaking drills on the ride home. If you get a 28.5, I think you were really good, and you even made the debate entertaining. I don’t think I’ll ever give a 30. I may have, but I don’t remember it, so it probably wasn’t a 30 if it happened at all. 29’s are working their way out of my system, but are still possible if you are really good in a debate and if I like you and hope to see you clear. 29.5’s… probably not.

Counter-Whatever/Theory I think negation theory often makes for poor debate. Sure it works to read a bunch of inconsistent arguments in the 1NC and then kick out of whatever the 2AC covers the least, but I feel that you should be liable for the counterplans or alternatives you advance on the negative. I enjoy watching a 2AC or 1AR wisely capitalize on this feeling. I also think that “conditionality bad” is a better argument than “conditionality good.” My threshold for voting on any theoretical objection is that it contain at least a specific link and a well explained impact. By well explained I mean I should understand why what the other team has done is egregious enough for me to tell them it justifies their loss. In general it is much harder to convince me that the other team should lose because they are “bad for education”. I am more likely to vote for arguments impacted with fairness/competitive equity claims. If you find yourself prepping for the 2NR and thinking about going for your “their bad perm is a voting issue,” you should maybe do something else. I don’t know why an intrinsicness or severance perm is a reason to vote neg, and I will be thinking throughout your speech that you should have gone for something else.

Topicality Why not? I don’t really care whether or not the Aff is Topical. I usually find non-Topical Affs entertaining, but I also like letting you play the game. I’ll vote for T, and it’s much easier to get me to do so if you do impact calculus. I really, really, really think the Aff should do something. Really. Save the do nothing cards for the negative debates. It’s called presumption, and I even vote for it on occasion.