Brundage,+John

Wayne State University 2011-present Dexter High School 2008-2011
 * Debate Experience:**

**Summary**: -Run whatever you like as long as you can at least sound like you know what you’re talking about -I’m a fan of counter interpretations, comparison, and explanations. -Don’t be a jerk.

**Kritiks**: I have a cursory understanding of most K arguments, but I can’t guarantee that I will understand an abstract argument dealing with graduate level literature in an obscure field if you don’t/can’t explain it well. Precision, clarity, specificity, and comparison are especially important here. K debates get a bad rep because they are where debates often devolve into assertions. Even if you’re going for a deontological or ethics claim, don’t abandon impact calculus/say “we should win because the aff is unethical.” The best K debates tend to happen when the K arguments are specific to the aff, and the aff’s answers to the K focus on why the aff is a good idea in the context of the criticism.

**Framework**: I default to the interpretation that affs should defend the instrumental implementation of a topical plan in order to fulfill their burden of proving that the resolution is a good idea. I also default to the idea that the aff should get to weigh their advantages, at the very least case is a disadvantage to the alt because if an aff that links to the cap K can prevent nuclear war, it’s probably evidence that capitalism is a good idea. Feel free to argue otherwise on either point

**Topicality/Theory**: It is almost as important to have an interpretation/counter interpretation in a theory debate as it is in a topicality debate. Topicality/Theory are just like any argument, so don’t forget to include things like clash, explanation, and impact calculus (aka, not just shadow extending your block). If I’m judging you in jv/novice, or the 0-5 bracket in varsity, I will not find precedent setting arguments very compelling.

**Counterplans**: These are cool. Remember to explain what your counterplan does, and why it is better than the plan, and the perm.

**Disadvantages**: The more logical the link story is the better.

**Paperless:** Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer to be given to the other team.

**Etiquette:** Ideally debate is a fun, enjoyable, and educational experience for all involved. If you go out of your way to create a mean spirited or hostile atmosphere you will lose speaker points. I don’t mind seeing debaters who are assertive, blunt, and aggressive, just make sure that in displaying these traits you are advancing your arguments instead of bullying or belittling the other team.

**Speaker points:** 30: Flawless in execution, extraordinary in pathos, ethos, and logos. 29.5: Probably one of the best speeches of the tournament 29: Excellent, no noticeable areas for improvement. 28.5: Solid execution, only a few noticeable areas for improvement 28: Competently executed speech. Infrequent but noticeable areas for improvement. 27.5: Adequately executed but there is room for improvement 27: There were several noticeable issues the probably kept you from winning the round 26.5: Significant problems in execution/strategy that made it nearly impossible for you to win the round 26: Significant problems in execution/strategy that made it impossible for you to win the round >26: You were caught cheating, and/or your behavior/conduct was reprehensible