Landrum,+Andrew

School: Liberty University Division: Varsity Years Debating: 3

Updated - 11/29/11

In general I believe debate is a game. But with that belief, I also think it's one of the greatest games because of the education it offers to those who participate. With that said, have fun. Reverse voting issues are stupid. If you extend them I'll probably dock speaker points.

Speaker points: 1) Speed should never be sacrificed for clarity. I understand if you're short on time and you need to squeeze a card in, but unless you absolutely have to, prioritize clarity. I'll say "clear" once to each debater. After that, if I still don't understand you, I just won't flow your argument. 2) Confidence gets you a long way with me. 3) Be respectful to other debaters and to me. I do encourage humor and small quips, but there is a fine line between sarcasm and being a jerk. 4) Cross ex is imperative. It's one of the most vulnerable areas when it comes to your knowledge of your evidence. Coaches can give you blocks to read, but your own comprehension comes out in cross ex. It's binding. 5) If you prevent your opponent from answering in cross ex, that won't bode well for speaks.

Kritiks: They are an extremely important part of debate and debaters that have the ability to "flex debate", i.e. run policy and critical arguments well, are impressive. With that said, you should know that during my debate career, I've primarily ran policy arguments. Because of this background, I'm more inclined to default to extinction being the worst thing, unless told otherwise. However, I'm very open to alternative ways of viewing the round and in my free time, I enjoy reading books and authors that find their way into debate arguments. Just be sure to avoid tag-line extension, especially with your alternative. Don't drastically deviate from your strategy in front of me. If you run what you're good at, you should be fine.

Something recent I've come to understand is, outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I personally believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" is convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.

K affs: I'm more inclined to believe they should be relative to the topic. These debates have the potential to be both really interesting and really frustrating, so be wise about it. Framework is a good option in front of me. But with my appreciation of framework, comes my desire to see it run well. So if you lose, I will vote you down. I think, if anything, K affs should at least have something for me to affirm and have some sort of goal for the debate-space. Teams that say "we don't defend implementation", or "we think contemplation is enough" as no link arguments out of Ks or DAs, are not persuasive. Defending your aff includes defending the consequences of that aff's implementation. Using performative contradictions, i.e., saying "your cap K links to your FW", as a reason to not vote neg, even if they win what they go for, is not strategic in front of me. I already think K affs get policy teams out of their comfort zone and they should be allowed to test the methodology of the aff and the a priori question of if the aff should be considered. "T is genocide" is stupid.

CPs/CP Theory: Slow down while reading theory or topicality. I usually err negative on CP theory if it comes down to something like conditionality. I'm totally fine with giving the negative 2 conditional worlds and the squo. Generally, theory on a CP is not a reason to reject the team if conditionality is good, so be sure to impact well. I'm becoming more and more convinced that process and conditions counterplans are abusive and, at the very least, justify limited intrinsic perms. PICs are evaluated on an individual basis for me. The states counterplan seems silly. If you run a multi-plank CP and run each plank conditionally, I will default to looking at them as multiple individual CPs that happen don't contradict.

DAs: Their great. Never underestimate the value of a smart analytic and cool tricks are encouraged. I will default to a time-frame based analysis unless told otherwise. Teams lose very often lose to args like "DA turns case" or even teams that form the DA into something that solves the case in the block. I love DA and case debates.