Eck,+Braxton

Braxton Eck

Background I debated at Maize South, where I competed in Debate (Policy, LD) and Speech for all four years. Only so I can be like Sam Smith, I want to add that I qualified to nationals twice. Additionally, I went to state for debate three of the four years in both LD and Policy. It isn't really relevant, but I was state champ in USX, too. Currently, I'm not debating in college, but might pick it back up next year. Also, I was a 2A/2N last year, but prior to that I was a 2N/1A. So, I've done it all.

Any questions about a round reach me at my email: braxtoneck32@gmail.com

Preface: No racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, or any other offensive or exclusive action. I will not tolerate it and will immediately give a loss and 0 speaker points, or the lowest possible, to the offending team. Absolutely none.

Here's some music while you read this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpGbzYlnz7c

TL;dr version I have no predisposition to any argument, and will generally listen to any argument/position that you read, but my only exception is higher level kritiks. I'm versed in basic Kritiks (i.e. cap, security, anthro, fem ir, imperialism), but don't have an extensive knowledge over more complex literature in regards to Nietzsche, Baudrillard, D&G, etc. That said, don't let that deter you from reading them. Just make sure you crystallize how the K functions in relation to the aff, why does the k access the aff harm, what the alt does, etc. Straight up going for Da+case or CP+DA is tight and will intrigue me. Regardless, you do you and what best fits your style of augmentation, and I'll flow it. I can keep up with your flow, but will yell "clear" twice. Failure to slow down or become more clearer will result in me still flowing but not getting down everything you say as a result. Additionally, something that is easy for me to distinguish and better for you is slowing down when reading your tag/author, because I will have time to flow it and distinguish this from your card or argument. Have fun!

Longer version

Case: I think a lot of teams underutilized case debate and it's a shame. And when I say case debate, I don't mean reading outdated, generic impact D. I mean reading a pretty sick impact turn or reading a nice Non U/Q + link turn argument. If you can effectively utilize case debate then you will be significantly rewarded and increase your chances of winning. I like good case debate, and prefer it.

Next part is stolen from my old lab coach, Jason Russell, but accurately reflects my views on Topicality. Topicality: Is ok. You need an interp. It needs an impact. The aff needs a reason to prefer their interp, or to meet the negative's interp. I believe aff's deserve predictability as much as the negative does. More aff's should say that. T can be outweighed by substantive arguments against the interp, like that it causes biopower, the state, zphc, derrida, la-dee-da, etc. In the instance that the aff attempts to "outweigh T", the neg should further elaborate on the substantive of their standards. They should also probably say T isn't like the holocaust.

Counterplans: Squo is always an option for the negative unless stated in CX or other speeches. I don't vote on Plan-Plus counter plans, they're super abusive. Textual competition is good. I find myself leaning more and more against Consult or Cheating CP, resulting in my leniency towards aff arguments on theory. Counterplans should have a solvency advocate.

Theory: Reason to reject the arg, not the team, with the exception of Condo or dispo. I'll listen to A-Spec, Pics bad, Condo, etc, but don't go for it unless you think it's a) a viable strategy, or b) the other team has massively messed up. Just because you have a pretty sick severance bad shell you found from a UMich camp file doesn't mean I want to hear it it in your 2nr. Remember, impact out.

DA: Remember, Link turns need UQ. Many debaters forget. i will vote on ptx. Aff can easily win no risk of a link to any dumb disad if they try. Disad +case or disad + cp are good debates and really intrigue me. Disads should always include "turns case" or "impact calc" arguments.

K's: Explain the alt. Explain how the K funcitons in relation to the affirmative. I believe that the aff will get to weight their impacts. Make sure to have a clear and good link/impact illustration. Why does the alt solve the case? Why does the K access aff harm? Questions that you, while reading your K, should be able to answer and explain in the 2nr. Make sure to read a Kritik that you are able to understand. I don't want to hear your generic Baudrillard shell that you have sitting in your backfiles. I'd rather hear you engage the aff via a clear link.

CX: I do listen to CX and love seeing a good CX. If you can get your opponents to concede crucial things or trap them, this really garners my attention. Make sure to ask a lot of questions and set them up.

Speed and Flowing: As previously mentioned, I will try to keep up with you on the flow, but if I don't have down what you said it is because of one of two reasons 1) you weren't clear which resulted in me missing your argument/tag/etc or 2) I yelled clear, you were clear, and then you reverted back to mumbling and being incomprehensible. In which case, I will still attempt to flow, but can't guarantee I will get down everything you said. Point being, BE CLEAR and I will flow what you say. Read as fast as you want, read as many arguments as you can, but be CLEAR. This will help both you and I. As stated in the Tl;Dr version, please distinguish your tag/author from the card itself. If that means slowing down just a brief second or even saying "AND" or some word to distinguish, that's fine. But the more distinguishable your card is, the more likely I will flow it.

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: None of that, please. If I catch that you are clipping, or the other team can prove that you are, I will give an instantaneous loss and a 0, or lowest possible speaks, that are available. No tolerance for cheaters.

Speaker points: Speaker points start at 27.5 and go up or down from there.

Other than what I have stated, have fun and enjoy the debate. It is what you make of it. I am a cool guy and will give oral feedback after the round, assuming enough time is allotted at the tournament. If, for some reason, I am rushed after making my decision, or the next round is starting, find me and I can explain why you won/loss, what you should have gone for or read in that round. Debate is about helping others learn, and that's why I want to judge as much as possible. Smile. Not enough debaters smile. Have fun!!!