Smith,+Darren

Darren Smith Centerville High School

Some words of wisdom to heed:
 * In my heart of hearts, I would classify myself as a policy maker, but I realize that I am unlikely to hear this too often. I will listen to other arguments.
 * I am **not** the fastest flow in the world. I try to get everything that I can, but if you are too fast, I won’t get everything.
 * I am not a huge fan of embedded clash. I like to see what arguments apply to what arguments.
 * I will only say clear a couple of times before I stop flowing someone. It would behoove you to look up every so often to make sure that I getting the arguments.
 * I will protect the 2NR. If I can’t draw a line from the 1AR to the 2AR or the 2AR arguments are not predictable, I am going to protect the 2NR.
 * Cross-ex should be between the two people that are actually supposed to talking. I don’t mind questions of clarification…, but don’t make your partner look like a tool by taking it over. It can’t help either of your points.
 * I don’t look at a lot of evidence. I really only call for evidence if the piece of evidence is in question or if I want to get the cites. If I do look at the evidence, you better make sure it says what you claimed that it said.
 * Be nice to each other. Nothing worse than a debate where I feel uncomfortable.

Critical Arguments I am willing to vote on critical arguments, but I will be the first to admit that I am not always proud of that. I am willing to be open to them because our teams run them and that only seems fair to me. I am not deep in the literature. I will listen to the arguments made by both teams and evaluate them accordingly. I need a lot of good impact calculus and I really think that the overviews need to somewhat slower. It is hard enough to get everything you want me to get in the 1 minute tags and with the made-up words. I think that the better critiques have specific links.

Topicality I don’t mind a good topicality debate. I know that I won’t hear many good topicality debates though. Realize that I am not a fan of the ten second INC shells. I think that you need to do some valid setup, but it does not have to be a two minute shell. Offense and defense are necessary components to answer and defend interpretations.

Theory I don’t mind a good theory debate either. I think that these types of debates need some development. As a result, I am unlikely to vote on the 10 second cheap shot in the block or the 1AR. If you want my vote, develop the argument. Nothing worse when there is a 10 second cheap shot in the block, ten seconds of answer in the 1AR and then the 2NR spend five minutes on it.

Impact Calculus Very important to me. They really set up how I think that you are viewing the rounds and more importantly, how you want me to view the round. Be clear about what you are winning and losing and make sure to make the necessary comparisons. Not doing this really can help the other side if they are doing this in your absence.