Mitchell,+Randy

Randy Mitchell

Head Coach – Newark Science, Newark, NJ since 2004

Experience: 4 years of High School Policy Debate for Bergenfield HS (NJ) 1993-1997

I used to run and go for a variety of arguments - I loved to debate kritik, but I would only run them against very specific cases that had specific links. I also used to debate Politics a lot with some kind of PIC to steal case. Those were my typical neg strats, although I have won rounds on Topicality or just straight case turns. It pretty much depended on the case. I never ran any bizarre aff, but I did used to run a case with a critical underview.

Full-time head coach of Newark Science since 2004 Philosophy: I will default to policy-making, but I am typically open to new paradigms if well-argued. I believe that evidence should not be confused with argument, so explaining the warrants in your evidence is very important. Simply extending taglines and the names of authors is not all that persuasive to me. I prefer debates that have excellent analysis on the flow, and not just in the cards I am supposed to read after the debate.

Theory – I have a pretty high standard for theoretical debates. In order for me to vote on a theoretical issue, it must be very clear and impacted well. I am more persuaded by theory debates when a team can prove clear, in-round abuse. Also, theory debates are often blippy and without much substance. I think a few well-explained arguments are preferable to a long dump of theory blips.

Topicality - I think there should be strong arguments as to why a competing interpretations paradigm is a good thing. If that is not impacted, I will default to evaluating abuse. I do not think I have ever voted because of a jurisdiction argument, although I have been convinced in the past by justification arguments, but I think they can be well-answered.

I do not have many preferences in terms of types of counterplans (although delay cps are probably pretty abusive). I tend to think that topical CPs and PICs are not generally abusive and make for interesting policy discussion. Unless there is blatant or specific abuse, I will tend to like CP debate and would rather hear a debate about the substance of the solvency, net benefit, etc. rather than theoretical issues about the CP.

Kritik – I like the kritik, but I feel that debaters usually place too much emphasis on the link level and fail to explain how the kritik functions in the round. I will vote for kritiks if I know what the implications are (and that does not mean “Biopower leads to genocide” – that is not an explanation), what the role of the ballot is or what the interpretation of fiat is. I think the impact level must be clear in my mind to be persuaded by kritiks.

Performance – I will listen to performance debates and be as fair as I can. I do, however, think that performative contradictions can be very persuasive if not refuted well. I also will probably lean toward the idea that having some division of ground and a resolution is educational and helps kids more than it oppresses them. I also think that ironic arguments can be extremely abusive, particularly when the team arguing them strategically moves between advocating the resolution and kritiking it when convenient. With that said, I have voted for these arguments in the past, so I am open to a good debate about the purpose of debate and communication.

I am OK with open cross-examination, although it will affect speaker points if one partner dominates too much.

As this is a public speaking activity, I prefer that debaters stand when speaking.