Davis,+Parker

You can add me to the email chain (Parker.Davis23@gmail.com) but I’ll only open up docs after the round if I’m being told that the content of a card needs to be a part of my decision. I’m not going to sit and read through it during your speeches, meaning you still should make sure we’re on the same page and that I can understand you. If debate was just everyone sending speech docs back and forth we could all stay home and save a lot of time and money.

I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear about what you’re arguing (like giving overviews) makes me more comfortable voting for you. I find that my worst decisions come when I’m not told what to evaluate and how to do it. In those instances, I may just have to pick what I see as the biggest disparities and start there, which may not be good if you and I see the round differently. Assume that I am not familiar with the argument/literature of your 1AC, K, etc. Feel comfortable to do what you do best, but here are some specific thoughts:


 * Framework** – If you are able to successfully frame the round in your favor, it can go far to help you win the round. It is important that both teams engage each other’s interpretations instead of just reading and extending. If neither team suggests a standard for evaluation, I’ll default policy maker.


 * Case Debate** – Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. I always have believed that smart analytics are preferable to just reading a bunch of cards.


 * DA/CPs** – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.


 * Kritikal Debate** – Sort of like what I said under case debate, taking the time to evaluate why the K is the most important impact in round is preferable to just reading your cards and extending them in later speeches. I think 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the aff. I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative.


 * Topicality** – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I’ll default to competing interpretations, but how I evaluate T should be work done in the round. I think of standards/reasons to prefer as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means that comparative impact calculus is important for any 2NR going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s. That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary if you’re winning the standards debate, but it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.


 * Theory** – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you should give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument.


 * Non-Traditional Debate** – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do.


 * Speed** – As long as you’re clear I’m fine with speed. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything.


 * Speaker Points** – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner.

Feel free to ask any questions.