Wade,+Reid

Reid Wade Cornell University

I'll vote on anything that's clearly explained and wins the round. That means as long as you understand what you're talking about and you can make me understand what you're talking about, go ahead and run whatever. That said, as much as I can I'll try to be a blank slate for you, but I don't know everything, so its probably helpful for you to know what I do and don't have a background in. Cater your level of explanation accordingly, and ask before the round if you have specific questions on anything. Here's the run down:


 * Case, Disads, Counterplans**

Did a lot of this towards the beginning of my high school debate career, and still like it. I do think politics disads (and most other crazy link stories, whether they're on the aff or neg) are a bit silly though, probably because most people don't explain them well enough to make them sound the least bit convincing to anyone who hasn't been desensitized to ridiculous link chains by doing policy debate for a few years - having had some distance from debate for a bit now, these types of arguments seem even less convincing now. That said, if you can manage to explain them clearly or your opponents don't make clear how ridiculous it is, you will win with them. In a nutshell, I think link debates are really important and are often overlooked in favor of other things in these debates.

In addition to explaining your link story really well, be sure to explain the mechanics of your argument if they aren't common knowledge. I haven't followed the topic very closely this year, so I won't know much of the topic jargon, if any - try to spell out your acronyms at least once or twice in the beginning of the debate for me, and sneak an explanation of something in during cross-ex if it's complicated.


 * Critiques**

Good critical debates are my favorite kind of debates, and the end of my high school debate career was a lot more focused in this area than the above. I'm open to anything, but please please please be especially good with explaining both what it is your author's are saying AND how it applies to the round. Firing off blocks you don't understand won't win you anything, so be comfortable with what you're running. Like with the above, if you're using jargon I don't understand I'll just be sad at you. It's probably not a bad idea to ask how familiar I am with your authors before the round and use an appropriate level of explanation from there.

Also note that just because you and I understand something it doesn't mean your opponent does, and while a good critical debate is one of my favorites, a bad critical debate is always a train wreck. If you're talking over the other teams head on purpose but I can still understand you, you'll win the debate, but it won't be a good one. :( Which brings us to...


 * Framework/Theory**

I definitely think there is a place for framework and theory in debate. Ideally, I think debates should take place at a level where both teams understand perfectly what they're talking about, and the actual conditions of the debate are balanced. Certain types of arguments can and do make these things untrue. People should be called out on them. But running theory as a time-suck argument, or using theory/framework to avoid debating the substance of an argument when it's totally doable, is a waste of everyone's time and doesn't teach anyone anything. I don't //like// voting on theory or framework unless you can really convince me that debating the substance of your opponent's argument was nearly impossible. I'm OK with RVI's if theory detracts from the debate to a huge degree, but I don't like voting on these either.

I also think that a lot of framework/theory debates can get pretty subjective since they are influenced, at least to some degree, by what the judge feels is acceptable. I try my best to not let what I intuitively think is fair influence how I judge theory debates, and what seems fair varies from round to round depending on the arguments, but for reference here are my gut feelings on a few things:

Condo - More than two conditional options for the negative is pretty sketchy. Counterplans - They should be competitive. Don't bother running anything plan-plus or the like. Critiques - Perfectly fine. Don't necessarily always need an alt, but explain why yours doesn't. Performance - Perfectly fine, as long as there's ground for debate. There are times when I can see framework being justified and I will vote on it, but if you can come up with a wicked counter-performance on the spot I'll think you're 10X cooler, and the debate will be a lot more interesting. Pics - If they're substantial, sure. "The" pics and stuff are pretty annoying though. Topicality - Affs should be topicalish. If they're debatable, debate them instead of running T. If they're absolutely not, go ahead and run T.


 * Speed, Speaker Points**

Speed is fine, I'll yell at you a few times if you're unclear. I want to understand as much of what you're saying as possible, and that's what most of your speaks will be based on as well, in terms of both your vocal presentation and the quality of your explanations: if I can just //understand// everything you're saying in a round, the minimum you'll get is a 28. Just have good debates and make it easy for me to follow, and you'll do fine.