Biesman,+Adam

I have debated for four years at Montgomery Bell Academy. During the 2013-2014 year, I have had over 100 debates. I am comfortable debating both a critical and policy style as I have read both types of affs this year. However, I err slightly policy in my decision-making/enjoyment of the topic. That is not to say that I don't enjoy a great intellectual debate as long as each team draws the debate to the 1ac.

Here are some specifics.

T- I think that T is a prerequisite to anything in the round. You have a huge burden to prove that conditionality or any other procedural argument takes precedence. On the T proper debate, I wish that more teams would debate T like a disad. Your interpretation is your uniqueness, violation is the link, and standards are you impacts. That being said, too many teams focus on their interpretation and ignore the impacts. Impact calculus is vital and can put you at a significant advantage over your opponents even if you fell behind on a few of the technicalities. As a whole, though, I do not enjoy topicality debates. I think that reading T against teams that are reasonably topical is just whining unless you have a definition that uniquely excludes the aff.

DA's- Love them. I think that these make debate so much more interesting and fun because they encourage the aff to utilize the 1ac in strategic ways while discovering new turns case/da arguments. Here are a few things that you have to do in front of me if you want to go for a disad. First, have an overview in EVERY speech after the 1nc. I want to understand the story of the disad and then know why it outweighs or should be evaluated before the aff (i.e. turns case). Second, explain to me throughout the disad debate, not just the overview, how it responds to the internal links and impacts of the 1ac. Third, make sure that every argument that you make is warranted. I hate nothing more than shadow extending disads which read tags and no arguments. Finally, answer everything that the aff says. It is the only way to ensure you cover grounds.

CP's- These can be very interesting. I think that strategic counterplans cut specifically in the context of certain advantages are damning and make debates super fun. Neg, this means that you have to make sure you research effectively and I will be open to hearing everything. While many counterplans are strategic and fair, there are many that I think the neg has a burden to prove are legitimate. These include: Commissions CP's, QPQ CP's, States CP's, and PICs out of something that is not in the plan text. I will judge based on who did the best debating so if you prove the legitimacy of the CP you will win. Aff, make sure you have a specific strategy that you are going for when you have theory in the debate, don't just extend jargon. PICS are totally legit though if the neg has done sick research- those are sweet and will be rewarded.

K's- My partner and I go for K's at least 60-70% of the time. I am very open to understanding much of the topic literature and hearing your strategy. I am familiar with the routes that a K can take in a round but I need to hear you do it for me. Generally, I like to hear how the K would relate specifically to the 1ac. Too many teams forget that they are debating an aff not merely the resolution. As a result, you probably shouldn't have a 6 minute pre-written overview because I will be less inclined to grant you a link to anything other than a generic. For teams that are afraid that I am too policy happy, here's how you can approach the debate: have specific link turns case arguments and do alternative analysis compared to the 1ac. Believe it or not, the K must compete with the aff to be a viable option.

Aff's- I'm open to anything. Explain why you outweigh and access your impacts thoroughly in the rebuttals. No preferences just be smart.

Speaker Points- I understand the woes of bad speaker points as a debater so I am generous myself. This does not mean I will give high speaks (only if rewarded) but I will not cost you anything unless major exceptions arise. 26 and below- you said something racist, sexist, or just did not respond to anything in the debate. 26-27- You knew how to focus on one flow but couldn't grasp the whole debate. 27-27.5- You debated the technicalities alright but need to learn more how to utilize your offense in a greater picture. 27.5-28- You are covering everything but are not tying the story together for a winning strategy. 28-28.5- You will probably break but you still need to focus on decision making and assessing your best in round strategies. 28.5-29- You had a great debate but did nothing to blow me away, you just did what you needed to do and will clearly break. 29-29.9- You were one of the best debaters ever and made some awesome strategic choices that could never punish you. 30- only if the other team clips