Herrick,+Drew


 * Centerville**


 * Overview:**

I debated 3 years for Centerville High School and 1 year in college. I currently help coach and fulfill judging requirements for Centerville. As a debater, I traditionally ran policy oriented arguments but also ran kritiks when strategically beneficial. Overall, I think the Aff should read a plan text about the current resolution and then defend and debate the ramifications of the plan. That being said, I view debate primarily as a game and specific //coherent// strategies will be rewarded. Finally, DO NOT just read evidence. Large numbers of cards do not take the place of quality analytic arguments and warrant extension- Impact everything you extend (Case as a DA, Our Links > their Links, Uniq > their Uniq, DA turns the case Etc.)


 * Specifics** (run what you wish but keep this in mind):


 * Case**: I think case debate (starting in the 1NC) is one of the most strategic options for the negative. Reading case specific turns, solvency takeouts and evidence indicts puts the negative block in a very good position. Even if you do not have evidence, I highly recommend that you make logical attacks against the case and advantages (specifically focus on Internal Links for the 1AC advantages). The Aff should be ready to easily reference the warrants within the 1AC and 2AC evidence and defend against negative case arguments.


 * Kritik**: Despite my policy rooted background, I’ve found myself becoming more and more accepting of kritiks and will vote on them if they are properly debated. Properly debating a kritik, for the negative, requires specific links (not they use the state/law/1ac = restrictive/etc.), an explanation of what the alternative is and how it functions in relation to the plan/round, and a specific framework for evaluating the kritik. For the affirmative, specificity arguments of how you access the case better and why your scenario is more likely etc. will be beneficial. The Aff also should be making feasibility arguments against the alternative and lots of impact calculation (includes specific DAs to the Alt and/or to the kritik framework). Finally, I’m a political science and philosophy major and probably decently versed in any kritik you are likely to run.


 * DAs**: I think that the negative's disads need to be plausible in some world (either based upon debater spin or based upon evidence). Overall, I mostly utilize offense/defense paradigm.


 * CPs**: I view case specific PICs as the main offensive position for the negative, assuming that the PIC has some degree of solvency and a clear quantifiable net benefit. Any specific CP that is couched in the literature of the 1AC Solvency/Harms is probably your best option. I will vote on Generic Agent CPs but will be hesitant to vote on Consult CPs which I feel are in most cases not competitive.


 * Topicality**: I evaluate Topicality as a Resolutionally based DA. Each side should be debating both the internal links (Limits, Ground, etc.) and the impacts (Fairness, Edu, etc.) in terms of comparative advantage. Which Internal Link is better? Which impact is more important? The neg should be perming noncompetitive aff definitions and always should list a topical version of case (assuming there is one).


 * Theory**: Be as abusive as you want but don't get caught. In most cases I will be hesitant to vote on theory unless there is an actual example of "abuse/education loss" within the round. Overall, I feel that I have a high tolerance for abusive strategies assuming they are strategically beneficial (stupid arguments even if dropped will not get you much).