Wells,+David

Former Assistant Director of Forensics @ Weber State

I debated CP, DA, case and Ks. I don’t have a preference for one over the other but I do enjoy interesting debates more than boring ones, or perhaps good debates over bad ones (not sure if many disagree on this point).

I am admittedly a bit slower than I used to be in the flow, but believe that I understand arguments better now than when I debated, so there may be a positive tradeoff for a few fewer pieces of evidence (especially in Kritik, performance) debates and a bit more explanation of the argument.

I tend give “defense” on CPs, Das and Ks weight if the link is not specific or at the minimum does not contain a warrant that would include the aff. Sometimes no link is true. Example: I K your use of moral obligations, you say no link we don’t make any Moral Obligation args, and you didn’t. You don’t link. I give no weight to the K. Though I do prefer “offense” type arguments as they make clash more specific and interesting.

I do not believe that the aff has to have a “plan” but strongly believe that that it is critical in non-plan debates to frame the role I have in the debate and what the ballot means. If you don’t have a plan, justify your framework for why you shouldn’t have one, not just because it avoids link arguments. I also, prefer “performance” debates to be resolutionally grounded. That being said, I am willing to listen to just about anything.

Most importantly, stick to your strengths in front of me. If you like big one off K debates, then go for it. If you like PICs, Politics, Case and theory, I like that stuff too. I enjoy debate and experiencing different approaches that are intellectual, interesting, at times entertaining, moving or what-have-you. You will do better being yourself than trying to be me. I did my time, now it’s your turn.

Enjoy your Journey,

David