Jordan,+Bryan

Bryan Jordan Hutchinson

I guess I’ll mention some background. I debated all through high school and I debated last year for the University of Kansas. I don’t have a lot of set in stone beliefs and I’m not an ideologue about any of this stuff in debate, but I have some ideas (although they really aren’t that important.)

Topicality: I think it’s a question of competing interpretations, and if left to my own devices, will view it as such. I think the resolution is probably a pretty important thing to talk about, but I could be convinced otherwise. I think I’m pretty fair towards critiques of topicality, but I can understand why a lot of people think the affirmative should talk about the resolution. I tend to think more about competitive standards (grounds and limits) rather than education.

Theory: Nobody likes voting for theory, but I’ll vote on it and there have been a lot of instances where I think a team would have been much better served by going for theory. I generally think that an interpretation should have a pretty clear vision of what would be allowed under their view of debate. A good 2ar going for theory would speak about theory for a little bit about this.

Disads/Counterplans: Like ‘em. I am a fan of tight strategies. I love a good counterplan. I am a fan of pics. I believe the negative needs to win a substantial risk of a net benefit. You need to actually win a plausible link not just say there is a 1% risk of a link. I am willing to say there is no link. I am also willing to say that an aff has no solvency. I'm not the biggest fan of artificially competitive counterplans, but I can understand the strategic use of them and I certainly am not going to take this into my own hands or to really view a theory debate through this lens.

K’s: I’m pretty familiar with them. Impacts to criticisms are important debates that don’t happen often enough. Wrong forum/framework arguments make little sense to me unless the alternative really is unfair. The idea that ethics/values/ontology are inappropriate in a policy framework is a position that puzzles me. On the other hand claims that consequences to embracing a particular ethic are irrelevant leave me equally puzzled. I really enjoy when debates mention what the alternative involves or what the alternative says.

I’m a pretty good flow. I can follow debates. But if you’re unclear, then I’ll try to let you know once or twice. If you don’t get the message then I won’t feel bad about missing whatever you say. I’ll read evidence after debates, but not too many of them. Obviously, a cohesive vision and some hints on deciding the debate are nice. If left to my own devices, nobody will like what I end up deciding.

I don’t know much about the topic. I know about general debate stuff and I stay pretty up on current events. I don’t like debates that get nasty, but I do enjoy humor. I dislike dishonest teams and I think that if you lie in pre-round disclosure there should be a penalty. I dislike overviews that are way too long. However, it's a very helpful to have a holistic view about the debate. It really helps when the debate gets complicated.

In the end, though, this isn’t about me. This is about you. If you’re a really good straight up team, then go for what you were going to read before. If you’re a really good k team, then don’t change your approach. Do whatever you do as well as you can do it. I’m sure I’ve left a bunch out so if you have any questions ask me.