Schexnayder,+Daniel

I debated for Little Rock Central in high school and currently debate at the University of Oklahoma.

Paperless: I stop prep when the flash drive is pulled from the computer. Please try to be efficient with speech flashing times or I might get annoyed.

In general, I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions. I also think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments. I would prefer debaters do what they are best at, rather than try to fit within my specific argument preferences.

In terms of specific arguments: Topicality: I enjoy a good topicality debate. Impact calculus is a must in these debates-each team should explain why their interpretation is better for debate in terms of education, fairness, or whatever. I’m somewhere in the middle with the issue of competing interpretations v. reasonability. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate through either lens but even if you win one of these you have to explain how that effects the rest of the debate. Disadvantages: They’re cool. I think I’m pretty similar to most everyone in these debates-specificity is always better than being generic, and warranted impact calculus is necessary to win the debate. If they are your thing, read them. Counterplans: I enjoy a well thought out counterplan. I lean somewhat affirmative on the theoretical legitimacy of consult, conditions, and PICs but can be persuaded that they are legitimate. If the counterplan text is long and complicated you should slow down so I can flow it. I’ll need warranted explanation of why the counterplan solves the aff and is net beneficial to vote for it. Criticisms: This is where I have the most experience. I am familiar with a lot of critical literature and will probably have at least heard of whatever argument you are reading. This does not mean you shouldn’t explain your argument or only speak in jargon even if I understand it. Links should always be contextualized in the context of the affirmative even if there are not cards for every link. There needs to be warrants to all the arguments just don’t say value to life outweighs or ontology first you have to explain why that is true. I think to win a K you usually have to mitigate the case in some way. K affs: I enjoy and have read many K affs. I tend to lean affirmative on framework questions but can be persuaded by it. That said, I will do my best to not let my ideological disposition influence my decision in these debates, so even though I generally think affs without a plan can be permissable I will still vote neg on framework, if the negative does the better debating. An aff without a plan must have strong warranted reasons that it is justifiable in framework debates in order to win. I think in debates where the aff does not have a plan a well executed framework argument is a viable strategy in front of me. K affs with a topical plan I think are almost always legitimate but can be extra topical, so you'd be better off reading a specific T argument rather than just. I think a lot of times these affs make large claims that could be substantially mitigated by the negative having a case debate and engaging the aff with reasoned arguments. Theory: I enjoy warranted theory debates but teams must engage each other’s arguments. Don’t just read your blocks at each other approach theory like every other argument. You should have warranted responses to their argument that include disadvantages to the other teams interpretation and reasons that yours is preferable. Don’t just blaze through theory debates at full speed or I won’t be able to flow it. Cross-examination: it’s important. A well executed cross x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the debate.