Mitchell,+Robert

Experience: Vanderbilt University: 2011-2015 Westminster: 2007-2011

Couple of things on the top: I've been all over the spectrum in terms of arguments. I grew up in the traditional "CP+PTIX" debates and I know that well. As I debated more, I moved into the "K+Impact Turn" side of debate. 1. Evidence quality makes and breaks debates. Don't put all your eggs into a crappy basket. 2. Please, please, please enunciate or slow down on authors if not the entire tag. 3. I can handle speed, but if you're unclear I will tell you to be clear twice (per speech). If I still can't understand you, I can't flow, so your loss. 4. Don't be overly mean in CX. I like aggressive CXs and I understand if you need to move on to get all your questions in, but don't be condescending or snide. 5. I started debate in the paper era, but most of my time has been paperless. As such, I know that the struggle is real. I stop prep once you say "stop prep". I will restart prep at some arbitrary time between 1 minute and 1 hour if you take too long to jump the speech. If your partner continues to prep, I will keep prep running. If the opponent continues to prep I will dock speaks. I give warnings, so don't worry.

Now to the specifics.

Critiques: I love good K's. Key word being good. I can be convinced of anything given enough work, but don't go insane. I have cut Bataille, I have run Baudrizzle. I wouldn't recommend either of those being your A strat. That being said, almost every 1nc I've ever had has included one of the following K's: Security K, Apocalyptic Rhetoric Bad, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Weaponitis. Don't be afraid to break out your hyperspecific K in front of me. I've probably read it before/read the author in an academic setting. HOWEVER: Impact it in terms of the debate round. Don't give me the all-jargon, no substance 2nr. Floating PIKs are your friends, but don't get caught.

Framework: -K-Affs -- I'm all for the K-aff and think its a great convention. I can be convinced that advocacy statements are allowed in place of "the USFG should" (meaning the plan text "my partner and I stand resolved that X should happen" is chill with me). I think there is also a place for the "Aff must be USFG" argument. Long story short, run your K-affs, don't skimp on framework. Negs, don't think its an insta-win.

-Performance -- Haven't really had or seen many of these debates, and I'll most likely vote against them unless your'e super tech on your framework answers. I just think debate is great the way it is. If you wanna argue it should change, you're in a uphill battle.

-Race Teams -- Personally I think debate is pretty awesome, so convincing me that debate is racist or sexist or bad for X people is going to be very, very, very hard. Note the school's I debated at. Very straight up. I tend to believe switch side is good, debate is fair, etc. If you try to convince me to vote for identity politics, you're gonna have a bad time, mkay?

-One off K rounds- put framework on a separate sheet. These debates tend to blow up and I don't wanna run out of space.

T: Treat T like a disad. Tell me why it matters, what happens in a world of X, why debate should be like debate is, etc. Poorly impacted T doesn't mean you win, even if the other team "drops it". If there's no reason why being untopical is bad, then why should I vote for it? Answer that question and you win. Although I shouldn't have to say this, I won't vote on RVI's on T like "T is genocide". That makes no sense.

Theory: I was a 2a for my first three years of debate, then I switched to 2n, so I like to think I'm pretty unbiased. That being said, a few theory arguments that sway me more than other: - PICs Bad, Consult CP, Conditions CP, insert other extremely abusive CPs that steal all of the affirmative. Process CPs and Agent CPs are gold in my books. These aren't game breakers, just be aware of my preference. You can win a consult CP in front of me, you'll just have to do the extra work on theory.

TL; DR -- I like good debates. You can win anything if you explain it well enough. If you're gonna cheat, do it smart and cover theory.

Counterplans: Do you. See above for the CPs you should bulk up your theory frontlines for. Otherwise, you're good. Be careful of what you're fiating through. If you're running 50 states and saying they somehow solve every solvency deficit, then I'm going to lean affirmative when it comes to theory. Conditionality - One K, one CP should be fine. If your'e not answering standards well, then the aff can sweep it even if it's not completely dropped.

Disads: I don't believe that analytics alone can break a DA but they can reduce the risk close to 0 if they're smart and unanswered. Please do your impact framing. Tell me why magnitude outweighs probability or why timeframe matters, etc. etc. Basically, don't act like this is your first debate; tell me why you should win.

Post round: Please write down and/or pay attention to what I'm saying. Judges do their jobs because they want to help. If you feel like I've shafted you in some way, I'd be more than happy to talk through my decision and why I voted the way I did. If I give post round advice, its so you can fix whatever I think you did wrong in the future.

If I left anything out, feel free to ask me. I swear I don't bite.