Walter,+Karl

Debated 3 years for Shawnee Mission East High School.

General-Always remember the big picture and write my ballot for me. Impact calc/framing are often the best ways of doing this. Have an argument/thesis for me to vote on. Oceans—I have limited exposure to the topic and will not know the inner workings of agencies and what all of the acronyms stand for. For a detailed solvency argument, you should take a second to explain in your speech for me. I pretty much know the resolution and know of a few common affs, but not much beyond that.

Speaking—Go whatever speed fits you, but please start slower to give me a second to adjust to your voice. Say “and” between cards, or very clearly switch tones for tags, don’t blaze through T and theory blocks, and keep in mind that slowing down to really emphasize something can be an effective attention-grabber. I will clear thrice, and I will never completely stop flowing (I’ll always try), but your speaker points will definitely suffer if I can’t understand you.

Evidence—Good evidence is obviously important, but I will try to call for as few cards as possible and I will not try to reconstruct the round. Be sure to extend warrants; extending a piece of evidence well from a previous speech is often more effective than reading a few more cards. Spin is usually more important than evidence quality unless a.) there is a large discernible disparity in evidence quality (under highlighted, no warrants, etc.) or b.) a team insists I read/compare evidence with a reason why.

K—Feel free to go for the K, but just know that I am most likely not as familiar with your Bataille literature as you are and impact framing is still a necessary tool. Ks are cheating is not an effective answer to the K. Epistemology indicts are a good way to reduce the risk of the aff, but please contextualize them to the aff (even if you don’t have a card specific to the aff discuss how their authors/arguments may be rendered suspect.) However, most of the time I am willing to let the aff weigh itself against the K, and if both sides of the framework debate are underdeveloped/even, just know that I’ll probably weigh the aff against the K (presuming the alt doesn’t a.) solve the aff or b.) subsume the aff). Floating PIKs are usually cheating (unless the K is uniquely conducive to them) but I recognize them as an effective trick.

Performance—No predisposition against it, but please keep in mind my lack of familiarity with this style of debate.

CPs—I tend to lean aff on Word PICs and Consult CPs being bad, but a.) Can be swayed with a good block and b.) think they are usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team. As for most other counterplans (ie agent, advantage, etc) I tend to lean neg on theory questions.

DAs—Keep it organized, do impact analysis about why it turns and outweighs the case. “Everyone dies, means we can’t do the aff” is not a good turns case argument. I will almost always side neg on intrinsicness/fiat solves the link arguments provided they are not straight dropped and the 2ac has a warrant to the argument.

T—I default competing interpretations, but am not a die-hard believer in this and can be swayed.

Keep a level head, be respectful, make smart arguments, and have fun!