Blaker,+Barrett

I debated 4 years at Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas TX in the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance I now debate at the University of Texas at Austin
 * General Philosophy and intro**

I like specific debates. My least favorite debate to watch is one that is a cookie cutter round of generic links and impacts with little analysis. I like to see work outside your evidence and real critical thought go into the argument selection and execution. Although cliche, debate is a speech act, the delivery and application is equally important to the content of the card its self.

I will not do work for you. Tell me how to vote and that's how the round will be decided. If you don't explain why you win and they lose or compare impacts/pedagogy/theory then I will have to decide and that may not turn out well for you.

I can keep up with you if you are clear. so please, for both our sakes, be clear. If I cannot understand your point or what you are saying i will yell clear. If it continues, I will only flow what I can understand.
 * Speed:**


 * Things to not do:**

rudeness interrupting your opponent breaking speech times if you do any of these, you better have a really really good defense. And if you have that defense, it might push these things into the "clever things i like" category at the bottom of this pref sheet.

I have a somewhat higher threshold for topicality. Make arguments specific to the aff topic and less about topic areas as a whole in order to be more convincing. I will however easily vote on T should an aff present abusive or non-educational discourse as its thesis. This is not to say that a poorly argued T against an untopical aff will always win. It is a matter of execution at the end. as for theory, i go into the round with no pre-dispositions. I have voted on 2 conditional advocacies are bad, and i have voted that 12 are fine. it all comes down to the debate on the theory flow.
 * Topicality and procedural arguments**

Links, links, links, internal links, internal links, internal links. Specificity is king in DA links, and reasonability is desired in the internal links. It is better to prove 100% causation of non-existential impacts is preferable to .001% chance of every man woman child and cute animal dying of Global Warming caused by TB causing AIDS that is a result of Nuclear War or whatever Impact scenario is being run.
 * DA**

I largely debate the Kritik. I am familiar with the common K literature and some of the smaller branch theory but esoteric and fringe K's will need some more explanation. make sure the link and general "story" of the K is well explained and applied to the speech act of the affirmative. see the arguments group for my favorites/things i have run
 * Kritik**

Counter plans need solvency and a net benefit. beyond that, actor/intrinsic/delay/PIC/advantage and all those sorts of types are innocent until proven guilty on theory. If you are an aff and have an objection to any of these types or conditional combinations of CP's let me see it in a theory argument.
 * CP**

This is fine so long as it is not immediately racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive. As a test, if MSU, Northwestern, or Georgetown would consider it outdated and insensitive, it probably is. This being said, if a very exclusive theory is run, I want to see that while a ballot would reject the aff, it would not necessarily reject the scholarship (eg. run it on the neg, run it with a plantext, etc.)
 * Framework**

Im not a super strict prep-time keeper. Prep ends when the drives leaves the computer. Dont steal prep, ill call you out.
 * Prep Time**

To give you an idea of me, here's what I ran in High School/have run in college or are particularly fond of.
 * Arguments:**

Disability: I run disability based arguments a lot. Satire Coloniality K's Security Absurdism (camus) Taoism Feminism (IR and Lesbian Sep.) Cap/Neolib (marxism mostly) Anti-blackness (Afropessimism)

anything clever or creative that makes me rethink debate and the way its practiced. this includes method and form differences