Snelling,+Tyler

Opening Comments:

Debate should be a place to have an intellectual comparison of ideas. I'm interested in listening to any argument you decide to go for. Clarity is far more important to me than speed, however no level of speed has been a problem. Depth > breadth.

I debated at Millard South High School for 3 years. I competed at the TOC once and NFL nationals twice. Now I am in my third year of debate at Concordia in Moorhead. I have judged a few more than 10 debates on the topic prior to blake.

Always assume the best case version of their argument and refute this argument. It's better for you to not waste your time telling me that an argument is dropped if it wasn't.

Paperless debate: I think that prep times only goes until your done prepping your speech, which means flash and hand time don't count against you. However, if I think that your abusing this, then I will penalize you.

More Specific:

Counterplans are far better when they are topically relevant. I would really enjoy to see specific counterplans to affirmatives.

Conditionality: I think conditionality is generally good, but that should not discourage affirmatives from going for it. I think the best conditionally debate occurs when the negative reads contradictory arguments.

T: I walk into debate with the mindset that the topic doesn't have a meaning [read: no aff is topical or untopical]. T is usually competing interpretations. Reasonability is better when it's specific to the affirmative.

Critiques on the neg: I have spent most of my time reading and thinking about critiques, so this means a couple things. If I catch you reading authors that blatantly disagree with each other, that hurts you. I think criticisms are better when they are contextualized to the affirmative in some way. I like plan inclusive critiques. I think counter-methodologies are interesting. Reject is sometimes what needs to happen. Maybe the permutation works? Your discourse is probably something that you should defend in a debate round.

Critiques on the aff: I think that affirmatives are in a better place if they can articulate a reason why they are talking about the resolution. That being said, there are a lot of different ways that you can talk about the resolution.

Framework- If framework is your strategy then go for it. Debates about our community are good and they are likely better if you have some relationship with the topic. I find myself in an uncomfortable place when teams talk about how other teams should go to a different forum. Education is probably important. I find that teams answers to framework should be more sophisticated then T=genocide.... From my experience, no matter which way a judge votes, the community is going to break down and fall to pieces. I simply don't think that's likely to happen. People might quit, but that doesn't mean our activity is falling apart. Your impact scenarios on framework should be more interesting than debate is going to end. Maybe that's true, but it shouldn't be the only reason that you have for me to vote for you...

I am ethically inclined to not vote for arguments that involve "killing humans good." If you win the debate, then you win the debate, but you better have some strong persuasive skills.

What do you think?

Email me if you have questions about anything: tsnellin@cord.edu