Bruce,+Caitlin

Caitlin Bruce

Three meta issues that are important: Level of explanation, evidence quality, impact comparison/framing. 1. Link explanation is more persuasive than a load of evidence. You should create interactions between evidence and incorporate it into an overall frame for the debate. 2. Quality matters, as does context. I do not think that short barely underlined cards are persuasive. 3. The impact/framing question is definitely the most important to me. As I'll discuss below I don't really care whether your impacts are more 'policy' or 'critique' oriented, rather, what matters is how you set up those prioritization questions and integrate the rest of the debate into that frame.

Critiques: I am probably most familiar with these arguments have run critical affs during my last few years in debate. This probably means I expect a higher level of explanation.

Critical Affs: I think a good K aff has a strong link between the plan and your impact statement. A smart K aff will be set up to tie in the plan and the thesis of the aff into every k/endictement of neg framing.

-Kritiks of disads should have very specific evidence/explanations related to the disad's impact claim.

-Cps- this goes generically for any aff- Your solvency deficit arguments need discrete impacts. Not solving as a generic claim is not an impact, nor does it mean that the full weight of the case is then leveraged against the CP.

-Kritiks- This goes back to the plan/impact link.

-T - kritiks of T are an impact turn debate. If you have a nuanced impact argument that engages with the neg's args then the critique of T can make sens.

Policy Affs: Read your best offense. I likely am not savvy about more technical parts of the topic so they should be well explained. - CP- you need offense. see above on solvency deficit issues. -answering Ks- i think almost any argument can be viable even including well-explained alternative theory arguments. I think your K answers should be pretty specific to both the K and your aff. -disad debates- I generally assume an offense over defense paradigm. So if you want to win on terminal defense you need to establish and defend that frame.

Negative arguments:

Critiques: -Kritiks- Specificity of the links super important to me, but probably equally important is the impact assessment/framing debate. Its difficult to get off the ground against a strong policy aff if you dont have some game on the framing debate. I think if you are going to read an alt you need to be responsive to alt theory arguments, though I also think that with a nuanced reps K with a good framework arg you dont necessarily need an alt (it is an impact turn debate after all). -CPs- They are necessary against large affs for the most part. If they are tricky/complicated make sure theres a point in the debate where theres time spent explaining the difference bw the plan and the cp. -Disads- the more specific the better. -Topicality- evidence evidence evidence- the quality of the T arg really hangs on the quality of your evidence- I will vote on T but I think it deserves all of the 2nr unless the 1ar seriously messes up. Potential abuse can be a voting issue if the neg makes it so.

Theory: I dont love it, I will vote on it if it is pretty relevent to the debate, and there is substantial time commitment/in depth explanation. I have a higher threshold for voting on pics and dispositionality.

Debates about Debate:

I think these debates are important.

I am however, not a great fan of these debates devolving into a criticism of the other team's person.

Framing matters; how you present your K of debate matters Why does voting for 'debate bad' in a competitive debate solve? What is the role of the ballot?

Good performances can be good (and persuasive) performances if there is a clear link made between how I ought to assess the debate and how it implicates the ballot.

I think debate is an important space (and a protected space) where we get to talk about a lot of things that can otherwise be talked about and so it can be a venue for creative and different instantiations of argument, but its also a competitive space and youve gotta make your argument competitive.

Hip hop, poetry, etc can be winners if you are explaining how your performance is necessary/good (the impact calc question) vs the other teams and how they link to your K of their practices.

CX: Is very important. Dont waste, your, mine and the other teams' time. It is probably the best opportunity to solidify your ethos so use it as such.