Erpenbach,+Jackson

Quick:

Debate is a competitive game centered around research.

That said, sometimes analytic arguments are just as good, if not better, than carded ones.

Clarity is important. Important arguments deserve more clarity.

Impact calc is important - the final rebuttal should give me a frame for evaluation and justification for the importance of your impact. Good final rebuttals should help "clean up the flow" and prioritize my evaluation of arguments.

Being assertive is good, but there's a line. Please don't cross it.

"Specific" Stuff:

Case - Case debates that have more than just impact defense in the block are great and don't happen enough.

DA's - Like them. The more specific the better.

CP's - PIC's are probably good. Conditions and international fiat probably aren't. Competition arguments that aren't grounded in the wording of the plan face an uphill battle.

NEG K's - The difference between a mediocre and good K debater is case interaction for both aff and neg debaters. Overly-exclusive framework arguments, on either the aff or neg, are usually unpersuasive. Value to life impacts are usually not very persuasive.

T - I probably have a higher threshold to vote on it. The negative should have additional cards in the block to illustrate limits and predictability arguments. Potential abuse is sufficient to vote negative.

Affirmatives must *relate* to the resolution, preferably being topical. It's important for the affirmative to establish a clear advocacy from the beginning. Whatever the advantages or impacts are, make sure they're explained thoroughly and contextualized.

Theory - I don't want to vote on under-developed theory arguments. Conditionality is probably fine, but can be excessive. Multiple, contradicting moral frameworks are worse than multiple options. I won't kick a counterplan for the negative unless asked, and convinced, to.

Last updated December 2013