Thomas,+Christopher

Debated China, Courts, Middle East @ University of Kansas Debated Agriculture, Nukes @ University of Texas at San Antonio Coached @ UTSA 2010-2011 Currently coaching @ Wake Forest University (2011-2012, 2012-2013)

- You do you, Imma do me. Debate however and whatever you want in front of me. Clearly, there are arguments I enjoy or understand more than others but that should not fundamentally effect your decisions at the end of the day. I competitively debated kritiks most often but I grew up debating CP/Disad. While I don’t claim to be amazing at evaluating a policy debate, I certainly don’t think I’m n00b material. I do have a tendency to side with argument integrity. So I’d much rather see more argument congruency (that may mean less arguments) than throwing the (digital) tub against the wall and seeing what sticks.

-I debated (some) kritiks. I know (some) Kritik literature. I’ll be honest, I do not have a great depth of critical theory knowledge but I know some. Kritik debate should be simplistic or if dense, be defined within the context of the debate.

-Ethos, Ethos, Ethos. I cannot stress this issue enough. I’d like to think this was pivotal when I debated, and find it incredibly important in a communication activity. Finding credibility in your presentation is critical, often times those moments in debate can be the most powerfully persuasive.

- Respect Others! I ask that the debaters not use gender, racist, homophobic or sexist language. Be nice to your partner, don't take CX from them. I love good shit talking, but there is a line between that and disrespectful.

-I think policy debate has gotten too fast, especially with the addition of paperless. Now debaters don’t even have to interact, look up at the judge, or take a break when moving on to the next flow yet somehow expect me to flow your counterplan text delivered at the same rate as your evidence. Seriously? Come on. You’ll win more debates if you think about how you debate in context to how one will judge. Let’s play a game, if you read your CP text at the same rate you read your evidence – I’ll know you did not read this. I am not dumb, I can keep up with fast debate. I just think we miss the persuasive part to debate because we forfeit it for speed.

- At the end of the day I fundamentally believe that if a judge cannot understand your argument then they should not vote for it. A lack of clarity for the judge represents a failure to effectively communicate on part of the debater. I just won't vote for something I don't understand. I don't have to believe it, but need to understand it.

-Execution does matter sometimes: I am still at the point of my judging career when I assess the quality of arguments after I assess whether or not they were answered. I think there can be styles of debate which do not stress this point.

- Humor, Sass and Wit get you everywhere. You win ethos and speaker points.

- When Affirmative and answering a Kritik always, always, always defend what you do. Framework is not persuasive when read by the affirmative. Winning the specificity of your affirmative is better than generic kritik answers or impact turns. You have reasons why your junk is true – talk about them. I’d much rather an Affirmative answer the Kritik by going for specific offense against the Alternative rather than going for a permutation.

- Be prepared. Bring paper. Bring pens. Bring a timer.

I don't have specifics in here, I know that, but if you have any questions please feel free to ask.