Foster,+Alex

Background: I debated in high school and at Emory (2001-2005). This year I’m actively involved in high school debate but not college debate. Richmond is the first college tournament I’ve been at this year, so you may want to slow down on very nuanced arguments that are specific to this topic. Preferences: I have a strong preference towards policy debates. However, I’ve noticed this lulls many policy-oriented teams into a false sense of security and they poorly answer ks (when aff) or performance arguments (when neg). This is not a good idea. I don’t have a higher threshold for critical arguments and **I don’t think my preferences should influence your strategy**. I’m very non-interventionist and will vote on just about any argument/ framework/ interpretation of debate if you outdebate the other team. I would also rather see a good K debate than a bad policy debate, so if that is what you are good at, go for it. Dropped arguments – by default, I’d be very hard pressed not to assign full weight to any dropped argument with evidence, no matter how bad the evidence is. Same for a well-warranted analytical argument that is dropped.

However, I’m easily persuaded to evaluate the debate in a slightly different manner if you make decent arguments why I should (and the other team doesn’t answer them well). For example: -read cards vs. don’t read cards to decide the debate -defer to link evidence if the U debate is close or vice versa

Other thoughts: 1) Offense on theory – you should have it. 2) Consult/ condition/ process CPs – Unlike Hardy, I think consultation CPs can (and usually should) be beat on substance, rather than judge intervention. I have no bias against these CPs. As for arguments why consult/ conditioning/ PICs/ conditionality are good/ bad, see 1. 3) ASPEC – see 1 & 2 4) Evidence – read some, preferably lots. 5) Speed – is good (see 4). However, it will not be good for you if you go so fast on topicality that I can’t flow the 20 blippy, subpointed analytical arguments that compose your 1NC/ 2AC/ 2NC. Separate short arguments with long or evidenced ones or slow down. This is generally only an issue on T, as you read the same blocks 4 rounds per tournament.