Bricker,+Brett

Brett Bricker
Debate History: 5 years of college debate at the University of Kansas, second year coaching. Last Updated: Pre-Pace RR

I want to preface this philosophy by making clear that my views about specific issues might change, but I will attempt to reflect those changes by updating this philosophy consistently. Here is a synopsis of important inclinations I've had throughout the year.

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose. 2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents. 3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Performance – Performance is fine if you make an argument. The team that best resolves the theory vs. impact framework debate will have a good chance at winning the debate. I am generally inclined to believe that debate is the most fun and educational activity that I have ever been a part of.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – Good PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings. Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive. Word PICs – Aff leaning Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning

Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited – the debate is a safe space for learning and interaction. Evidence must be presented in an academic fashion. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. I also consider violations of disclosure norms to be pretty lame generally, but I understand the difficulty surrounding enforcement of my personal beliefs about disclosure. Don’t say “new aff” if you’ve read the same aff, but have a different “theme” to one of your advantages.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.