Mitchell,+Todd

Todd Mitchell University of Georgia Milton High School

I debated for 4 years at the University of Georgia.

I love disads, well-researched strategies, 2ac add-ons, Wake MS, and debaters that make strategic decisions. I dislike shallow theory debates, generic args that don't change from round to round, and people that don't answer questions in cross-ex.

I will try my best to evaluate the debate based on arguments that are made in the round. I do have some preferences, but nothing is written in stone. If you out-debate someone, then you will probably win.

I default to evaluating rounds on whether the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive alternative.

My thoughts:

1. Theory- I'd prefer to hear you debate about something else, but I understand that it is sometimes necessary to go all in on theory. I have a neg leaning on most counterplan theory: I think that conditionality is probably good and well-researched pics are strategic. I am more skeptical of "whole plan pics" like consult, delay, conditioning etc. I am a fan of neg flex. Don't forget to impact theory arguments.

2. Topicality- I usually think it is a voting issue. I default to competing interpretations, but can evaluate it based on your standard of choice. I think that examples, well-researched violations, and "what the topic would look like" help the negative out immensely. The aff doesn't need offense, but the neg needs to win an impact. Spec arguments- are usually a waste of time

3. K's- I don't have a tremendous depth of knowledge, but affs fail to stay offensive on the alt and the impact and I find myself voting for them quite often. K's are best when they are well-explained and impacted, and the neg wins the framing of the alt. K's are weak when the aff wins that the alt is BS. Framework- A lot of people forget to impact framework- ie is it a reason to reject the alt, weigh the case impacts, or let the neg "fiat" their alternative. I don't think that the neg wins just because the "plan doesn't really pass"- there needs to be some development beyond that. I also think that "even if" analysis is helpful to both sides. (Note: I think that some framework debates are unresolvable and a middle ground may be necessary.) Critical affs- often very strategic because the aff framework can be the only issue they need to win. The neg needs to make their arguments interact with the aff. Affs: I need a clear argument as to why a neg counterplan doesn't solve the aff and compete on net benefits.

4. Non-traditional debate- I'm undecided. I think that they serve an important purpose and open up dialogue about issues that may be more important than the topic. However, I think that debate is a game and that you need to win that what you do is either good for the game or outweighs the game, and that there is a reason to vote for you. If you are debating a non-traditional team, don't get defensive and forget that you're here to win. You still need to negate the affirmative.

5. Counterplans- not used often enough. Don't be afraid to 2nc counterplan out of something.

6. Disads- are always good, especially if they link. Uniqueness is not as important as link magnitude. It is possible to win 100% defense against a disad if it is just not true, but there will probably still be a risk.

7. Impact Analysis- wins debates, no matter what the issue. Offense helps. Cards help. Being smart really helps. Long overviews hurt. 1 well-developed argument is more persuasive than 10 blips.

8. Other issues Evidence- evidence comparisons are more important than card quality Gendered language- can be a good argument if you win the impact (vote against them) and I am more receptive than most with these arguments Mean people- they exist. Don't be the bigger dbag. Nice people get speaker awards. The UGA school of thought- if you know someone from Georgia, I probably have similar thoughts about debate (unless it is Brent Culpepper). We like politics da's, process counterplans, and cards.

Feedback- I occasionally give nonverbals if I'm loving what you're doing or if I want to kill myself. You can probably gauge whether "I'm with you" or not. Please don't sacrifice clarity for speed. My flow suffers if I can't understand you.

Good luck, have fun, and go to Georgia.