Stanfield,+Daniel

 Dan Stanfield  2 Years at Los Rios Community College  1 Year at CSU Fullerton  Currently at UNLV

 Coached for CKM on TI topic  "I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." - Scott Harris

I will attempt to limit the amount my predispositions will influence how I evaluate a debate round. Don't feel as if you need to change your strategy to debate in front of me, do what you do best, because the alternative is usually subpar debate. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.I enjoy a high level of specificity and nuance broad sweeping claims will get you nowhere. I place importance on how pieces of evidence get debated, as opposed to simply constructing debates based on the pieces of evidence that have been introduced. While I also place a premium on quality evidence (which, I would like to be able to hear during your speech), I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

I think that c-x is incredibly important. I keep track of it and think that most debaters misuse their time and often forget to utilize arguments made in c-x during their speech. A nuanced question asked of the 2nc may radically alter how a 1ar responds to a position—but it is up to you to prove that in the speech.

Theory:

Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing almost always favor the neg.

I don’t like cheap shots.(This does not mean I won't vote on them, I'll just be cranky about it) I like arguments to be well developed. Most cheap shots are not reasons to reject the team and significant time would need to be spent in order to convince me otherwise. However, it is your burden to point out how irrelevant many theory arguments that are advanced in debates are, as a concession may force my hand.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Theory questions my predispositions make me tend to err aff on include PIC's bad, International Fiat Bad, Condition CP's , I do think this is all debatable and generally the litmus test for whether a CP is theoretically legitimate for me is the solvency evidence, I can be convinced almost any CP is theoretically legitimate if it has good solvency evidence. Similarly, theory arguments are rarely if ever a reason to reject the team, I would need some very good debating to convince me that I should reject the team instead of the specific argument.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">T:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">I like T. I think that the aff should to be about the resolution. The aff’s relationship to that resolution is up for debate. THere is little that I enjoy more than a robust T debate, however on the flip side of that there is little worse than a bad T debate.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">FW

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">THose who know me may believe I have a specific bias to the aff in these debates. I cannot stress enough how untrue this is. I actually enjoy FW debates and can easily vote for either side, the best piece of advice I can give in these debates is to explain what your vision of debate looks like. The final rebuttals when going for/answering these arguments needs to explain to me what is good about your vision of debate and what is bad about the opposing sides version of debate. I also strongly believe that a negative team needs to win a SPECIFIC topical version of the aff claim in order to win these debates, just saying a topical version exists isn't good enough.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">The K:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">I will do my best to limit my predispositions from giving explanation or advancing arguments for the other team. Specificity and spin are important for both sides of the debate. I don’t like generic explanations of meta theory with no tie to the affirmative. Similarly, I don’t like generic responses to critical theory outside of the context of the aff. Generic evidence does not force generic explanation.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">CPs/Das:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. Sometimes there is simply no link.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">The last thing I will say is that debates that I have fun in will be rewarded by higher speaker points. I have fun when I see well thought out and deployed strategy.. Make me laugh and you will be rewarded. Be nice.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Change in 2014

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">excessive / intentional use of racial slurs, jokes in bad tase, misgendering, ableist slurs will result in much lower speaker points.