Allen,Sam

Type in the content of your page here. Debated for Whitman College and the University of Wyoming. Debate for Capital High School, Boise, ID

I will try to make my proclivities as little a part of the debate as I can. I have an okay flow and I will attempt to decide primarily from that resource. This means that even if I read evidence after a round I will attempt to rely more on the way that I interpreted your description and application of that evidence during speeches and cross-examination.

Don’t expect me to have a background in what you are discussing. This applies to any argument you read. Arguments should have at least a warrant for their claims

“Offense-defense. Obviously without offense there’s “always a risk. Obviously good defensive args can reduce that risk to the point where it’s not a relevant consideration.” -- Jeff Buntin

You do not need evidence to point out the logical gaps of many disadvantages and advantages. You should have evidence to substantiate your claims. However, if a team wins that your evidence is from sources that have no expertise it will have as much weight (if not less) as an analytic argument.

Topicality Not an RVI. Not genocide. Always a strategic option. Consideration of the fairness of the interpretation as well as the educational merit are likely important. Weighing those within a specific framework will help. Plan flaws and typos (both in plan and counterplans) are not solved by clarification. ASPEC et al are likely a stretch and expect that I will find flippant 2AC arguments compelling in these instances.

Counterplans Textual competition is a good standard. I am, likely, not a good judge for a consultation or condition counterplan. I am likely to find theoretical objections and Perm: Do CP persuasive. Conditionality is good. Multiple conditional counterplans are probably good (if you can line item planks of your counterplan you should make that explicit if asked about the status of the counterplan, please). You are more likely to persuade me that the counterplan is abusive and should be rejected for another reason. Theoretical objections should take into consideration the fairness and educational significance of including or excluding a particular argument. Theoretical objections are almost always a reason to reject arguments not teams.

Kritiks Explaining key concepts in terms of the affirmative is probably the best way to convince me that moving from a liberal policy making framework is preferable. Be clear in the explanation of your position in cross-x and speeches because it may be likely that I am understanding your position the way the other team is describing it if I don’t know what you are saying. Be explicit about the role of the ballot. In general, the most flesh you can give to your ideas the better I will appreciate them. Reading evidence that a team may be able to kritik is not absolute in undermining the entirety of the case. A competitive alternative likely will not include the passage of plan.

Cross-x I think this is the best part of debate. Arguments clarified in cross-x should be consistently held throughout debate. Speaker points.

Notes Paperless transition of evidence will NOT be timed. Alternative use time if all debaters want. Cutting cards during the debate is okay. Receiving coaching is not. Or clipping cards. Or stealing an obnoxious amount of prep. Be Nice.