Donovan,+Seamus+E

Speed:

I am capable of flowing fast debates, but clarity is a must. Most debaters who ask me how I feel about speed proceed to read frontlines and blocks without much clarity or precision. The best policy speakers are outstanding for their ability to be clear while going fast and to downshift slightly and enunciate key points (author's names, contention titles, taglines, etc.) I will provide warning "Clear!" if your speech is incomprehensible, but I have no problem saying that I did not get an argument on my flow because it was not intelligible. I will not look at your case as a way to supplement my flow, though I will look if particular claims in pieces of evidence are contested and I feel reading the original will help me evaluate the round. The long and the short of it is that I have no objection to speed, but consider it your fault and not mine if a lack of clarity in my flow hampers my evaluation of your arguments.

Content:

I do my best not to bring any preconceived notions into the round. As far as I'm concerned, the proper allocation of burdens, the role of affirmative and negative advocacy, and any other "meta" issues are fair ground for debate. I don't think you are required to present a criterion, although I have never seen a case where failing to do so was strategically effective or improved one's likelihood of winning.

One belief I do have is that if both debaters present criteria, there is a strong presumption that those criteria, and competition between them, should be key in evaluating the round. That is, if you want to present "pre-standard" or "independent" voting issues, I expect a meaty explanation as to why that issue is, in fact, pre-standard or independent. I am not interested in pulling the trigger on a blipply one-off argument that has nothing to do with the criteria you told me were essential to evaluating the resolution. This is not to say that I won't vote on these types of arguments, I will, but I am un-persuaded and often annoyed when it appears the strategy is to overwhelm your opponent with "independent" reasons to affirm or negate for which there is little explanation as to how the argument fits into the voting scheme beyond the words "independent," "a priori," or some equivalent.