Shaw,+Bobby

I debated for Glenbrook south for four years and am now a debater at Wake Forest  I do not care what arguments you read or positions you take; however know that some arguments are much more difficult to defend. I think Calum best contextualizes this when he says “If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If debate has an educational value, it comes from the necessity to defend one’s position against a competent adversary on all fronts with a judge who, although objectivity is impossible, does not dismiss arguments out of hand due to their soundness rather than validity.” Because of what is above I am not going to list the arguments I would prefer to hear, just argue well and you wont have a problem. Some specifics **Speaker points**: A large number of debaters underestimate the importance of speaking in debates. Having a presence in the round, acting with class and passion matter to me. It shows that as a debater you are engaged in the round and care about what you are saying. With that, don’t be a jerk. How you carry yourself will not only affect your speaker points but will affect how persuasive I think your argument is. To quote Seth Gannon “Debate is a communication activity. Good debaters recognize that, time pressures and all... they identify breakdowns in communication and correct them.” **Framework**: These debates should center on what practices are normatively good (should be encouraged) versus undesirable actions that no one should follow. It is much more persuasive if it is argued as a methodological argument about debate and not a set of “rules”. Going for framework is very similar to going for a disad or any other argument. It requires a link, impact and each of those should be flushed out. There should probably also be an argument about why the critique fails (ie it makes political engagement worse etc). I enjoy good framework debate, ive spent a lot of time arguing both sides of It; just make sure it is argued well. **Theory –** Views are in line with my thoughts about framework – it should be about the advantages and drawbacks about a particular practice **Disads/cps/ks** – A good debater has the ability to go for each one of these positions in the 2nr and win. Flexibility makes the affs job infinitely harder. As a result, try your best to not constrain yourself to one position (obviously don’t go for the K if you are bad at it, same goes for cps etc).