Dailey,+Colin

I'm Colin Dailey. I'm a junior at George Mason University and on the policy debate team there, making this my 6th year in debate.

tl;dr To put it simply, I will listen to any argument. I have done and enjoy both critical and policy debate, so do what you're comfortable with. No matter what style you utilize, just make sure that it is explained well. As is hinted at throughout my philosophy, I'm ass flow oriented as possible. Even if I know what your argument is, I will only vote on how you articulate it. This is a communication activity despite all of the silly sounding reading, so communicate to me.


 * General Things**

I don't often call for evidence. I'll call for evidence if I think you have a cool/good card (which won't be evaluated off of that), if there's a dispute on the warrants or quality of a card important to the debate, or if there's so little comparative work done that I have to weigh evidence for you. I really really don't want to have to do the last because I see it as bordering on intervention. Which means you should expect not the best speaks if I have to do that. It's on the debaters to tell me whether or not evidence is good/bad or if it's being characterized correctly. If I do call for evidence and I can't connect it to my flow then you don't get it.

I think that typically I'm looking down at my flow writing as much as possible, but I've been told I show a lot of facial expressions during speeches. If I'm looking at you, you should gauge my facial expression as to whether or not you should change your explanation, move on to something else, or if you're doing good. If you frustrate me enough, I may say something out loud ("Move on!" "That doesn't make sense!"). That doesn't necessarily mean you're winning or losing thus far, just that I'm annoyed at that moment.

Analytics are important and good. They hedge back against bullsh, give you arguments when you lack specific evidence, are time efficient, and show the actual thinking skills that you get from debate. The right analytics can demolish any arguments.

In cross-x, I have no problem with being aggressive. It's a high intensity competitive activity, but that's not a free pass to be rude and domineering. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a smart ass if you can pull it off, I'll enjoy that. Oh, if you get caught up on one thing in cross x that is a dead end or been adequately answered, I'll probably yell at you to move on because I'm bored and annoyed.

I stop prep when the flash drive comes out of your computer or when the email is sent. It's your burden of being paperless to be efficient with it. I don't want my time wasted or yours because it cuts into my decision time and time to explain my decision and give feedback. If you're having computer issues, the screen has to face me.

It helps to make your face visible to me when you speak. Have your laptop turned or lower than your face so you actually project to me.


 * Speaking**

In general, I give speaker points based on a few criteria: 1 - Organization of speeches - Don't mess up my flow. It's only harmful to you if I have to search for where I have to place an argument because that's the only thing I have to evaluate the round. If the other team messes up my flow and you reorganize the debate logically and well, you'll be rewarded. 2 - How clear you are - If you aren't clear, I will tell you so by yelling "CLEAR!". Slow down, change your inflection, enunciate more, or do whatever is necessary for me to flow you. If I have to yell at you, you should also not be surprised if I miss an argument or two. If I yell at you 3 times, every time after that loses half a speaker point. That said, if you just have trouble speaking in debates for whatever reason, I can recognize that and won't penalize you for it. 3 - How efficient you are - Good word economy and lack of repetition is only beneficial to you. You get more arguments out and there's less dead time for my pen. 4 - Ethos - Persuade me. It isn't said enough that this is a communication activity. You don't have to try to move me to cry or anything, just be well spoken, have some passion, and make me think I should vote for you. Though if you do manage move me to tears (not of laughter).

I start everyone at a 27.5 for default, and then go up or down. I don't care about curse words in moderation and when appropriate. If your speech ends up being a slew of cursing with some arguments in between and it isn't related to your specific argument, I will tank your speaks and probably tell your coach. Being blatantly offensive is not acceptable. By that, I don't mean linking to a rhetoric K, I mean saying something that is directly offensive to the other team and you don't seem to care/don't apologize. I'll probably interrupt you. That's a sign that your speaks have been bottomed out with no chance of redemption and again, I will probably tell your coach. Debate is a community activity and that requires mutual respect or at least some civility.

Make sure to pause a moment when transitioning between flows to make sure that I'm caught up and (forgive the pun) on the same page as you/

If you can make me laugh during your speeches, you'll get a bump in speaks (assuming I'm not laughing at you). Saying that doesn't mean your speech should be a stand up routine. If you try to make me laugh and fail, you'll probably see me grimace. Also, I don't mind small talk throughout the round. I don't want to be a statue in the back. But don't think that gets you any brownie points.


 * Arguments**

-Procedurals (Specs) - I think that ASPEC tends to be relevant given the popularity of agent CP's and DA's with process links. I'll roll my eyes at OSPEC but if it's won it's won. Hearing a topic-related specification argument with an in depth description of why that's relevant to having ground to a particular portion of the topic that provides unique education will be incredibly interesting and will get you a lot further than generic arguments to fill the 1nc.

-Theory - Have an interpretation. What's the threshold for your arg? You have to articulate the link to your argument. What did the other team do that's abusive? And if you want it to be a reason to reject the team, you have to impact it and explain how it impacted the round or establishes a bad precedent for debate. Have offensive and defensive arguments. If no one says anything on it, I'll default to T outweighing theory, it's a gateway issue. This is an argument that relies on tech skills. Keep it organized. It's also dense with argumentation and doesn't give much air time for my pen. Remember to slow down a bit. I admittedly have not had to judge many theory debates given it isn't quite as common in high school, so I can't honestly say which direction that I'm biased, but I would guess aff leaning. Just win the debate.

-T - I have my own topic to debate, so chances are I'm not well read on the high school topic. This means you should provide detailed analysis of what the topic should look like. I like to hear a good T debate, but I'm not going to say "don't run T as a timesuck" because that's just inevitable. Your interpretations establish a particular vision of the topic. Give me a clear case list for that topic. Give me a T version of the aff. If there's not a direct T version, how can affs on the resolution solve the aff education? Give me a list of lost neg ground. In round abuse? Should I vote on potential abuse? Should I prefer fairness or education? Why? I default to competing interps, but I'm partial to reasonability. However reasonability is a tough sell without a we meet and counter interpretation with an articulation of what the aff world of the topic looks like. If the we meet is just true, that obviously saves the aff a lot of effort.

-Case - It's only detrimental to not have a fleshed out case debate. Both the aff and neg seem to under utilize the aff case in high school debate. Uniqueness questions for advantages, internal link defense, impact defense, internal link turns, impact turns, solvency defense, solvency turns. You have so many options. If you don't have specific case answers, take the time to think of an analytic or two for each page.

-K affs - I want a clear explanation of your method or intentional lack thereof. Framing of the round is important. You're re-situating my ballot to mean something outside of the norm of debate, you should probably detail why that's important.

-FW (for K affs) - There needs to be an offensive reason why the affirmative either fits into, should be interjected into, or entirely abandons the topic. That said, I do lean toward at least being in the direction of the topic, it's probably good to have some reference of discussion. Protip: You probably aren't going to win defining words in the resolution on framework ("Resolved=Reduce by mental analysis" and "USFG means the people" aren't really round winners). If you have a defensible counter-interpretation like "the aff should be in the direction of the topic" or "the aff should make a controversial claim about the topic" and do the work to defend it, you can likely convince me that you aren't all that abusive. You should keep in mind that predictable limits is the internal link to fairness AND deliberation DA's. Probably a good place to think of your best offense.

-FW (for the neg) - Framework can end up interesting and enjoyable or boring and stale. If you go for the procedural/fairness portion of framework, I want to hear a list of what kind of unpredictable cases the aff justifies, what arguments you lose, why those arguments are important/good to debate (if the aff wins that the arguments you don't get to read are epistemologically bad, why should I evaluate them?) and why fairness is good/outweighs the aff. If you go for the deliberation/policymaking DA portion, you need an established internal link for why predictable limits and clash to debate government policy is good to solve whatever nebulous policymaking impacts, why the aff can't solve it, why that epistemology is good, and why it outweighs. Winning T version solves the aff mitigates most or all aff offense unless they're blatantly not at all within the topic. Going for T version, you should have justifications for policymaking being good, legal discussions being good, and some sort of external impact (Fairness DA/Deliberation DA). T version can be easily characterized simply as a CP or methodology debate, it would be helpful to treat it as such.

-DA's - Why does the DA impact outweigh case? Does it turn case solvency or impacts? Is the DA unique? Is the DA uniqueness too true? Is there a link? What's the threshold for the aff triggering the link? Does the internal link story make sense or is it cobbled together debate nonsense? These are all the basic questions that should be answered for me throughout the debate. Mitigate the aff case, turn the aff impacts/internal links, or solve the aff with a CP, then win an external impact and it's done. Aff, consider all of that as well. Don't forget your advantages/impacts. Tell me why those are more important and how they interact with the DA.

-CP's - Be competitive. Have an offensive net benefit (solving better isn't much of a net benefit or one at all). If the Aff/CP debate ends up close, flag the presumption voter and outline which direction it goes. Aff, don't forget to call the neg out on cheating CP's.

-K's - Aff: Too many high school teams seem intimidated by K's or over-glorify them. They're just arguments. Don't be afraid to call them out on crap. Don't let the neg get away with nebulous, buzzword-laden, hipster explanations. The more complicated the K, the more you should press the neg on their claims. Their authors probably aren't qualified to make accurate claims on policy. Neg: Winning the K is all about spin. Specifically describe your K in context of the aff. Unless you've cut some great specific link and impact cards, chances are your cards don't specifically criticize the aff, so tell me how they do. Do the right impact framing and win the role of the ballot. If you can set up a uniqueness story to turn your K into a DA, by all means kick the alt or tell me to boot the alt for you if the aff wins no alternative solvency and weigh it as a DA. In methodologies debates against K affs, I'll honestly probably get bored unless the K directly clashes with the aff. Not really having a fleshed out link/impact debate in favor of talking about starting points and root causes and alt solvency just seems to make more of an arbitrary debate that lacks very much clash. The only persuasive argument I've heard for perms not being allowed in a methods debate is that the aff doesn't have a stable advocacy to prove or disprove mutual exclusivity.


 * Ethics Challenges__****

Reading ahead in speech docs. Once = you are required to sit so that I can see your laptop screen. Twice = you lose massive speaks and the partnership will be disallowed from receiving speech docs until the end of a speech.

Getting live assistance from outside of the round (As in messaging coaches, other debaters, or anyone during the round for help with the round) = I consult tab

Card clipping (not reading everything that's highlighted in evidence, not marking where one read, and misrepresenting the evidence as being entirely written) = auto loss and zero speaks - If you think the other team is clipping, start a recording and one person in the partnership should highlight parts of the card that they hear being read. After the speech, tell me you think they're clipping and if you think it's true the round will be stopped and I will listen to the recording and track along with the modified speech doc. I ask for a recording because once we get past the 1AC/1NC it's harder/not possible to verify by means of rereading the speech - Be positive that you want to declare a challenge because the round will not start again and if you're wrong you lose.

Ask me plenty of questions if you have them. I can be reached at colind525@gmail.com