Wheatley,+Chris

Name = Chris Wheatley Affiliation = Aspen High School – Social Studies Teacher & Speech & Debate Teacher & Coach – 4 years School Strikes = Pace Academy- History.& Public Speaking Teacher ; Fuqua Chair and Director – 16 years
 * Christopher Wheatley**

CX Philosophy = I am a hypothesis tester. I believe that it is the responsibility of the affirmative to prove both the necessity and sufficiency of the resolution. I believe that at both the beginning and at the end of the debate, the focus is on the resolution and NOT a plan or single example of that resolution. We all have the opportunity to vote for our favorite resolution each year and we all agree to abide by that vote. Nobody voted for your plan. It's the resolution that keeps the entire game from falling apart. This has some serious implications for your debate performance. First, the affirmative cannot NOT be topical. They ARE the resolution. The affirmative should probably demonstrate that examples they defended are indeed highly representative of resolutional action. The affirmative gets to use all of the resolution to answer objections to the resolution. Doesn't this promote 'counter warrants '.?!? Well, yes. . . ALL arguments against a warranted claim would by definition be a counter warrant! Further, a counter warrant can be as simple as your Politics, Federalism, Spending, Net Widening/Institutionalization disads or your topic-related 'Kritiks'. . . or maybe even a disadvantage/case turn that was intrinsic to the topic ! Additionally, resolutional alternatives would necessarily need to be NON-topical to avoid providing an additional reason to vote for the resolution. More affirmatives need to 'capture' the alternative/counterplan ! Alternatives/Counterplans should probably compete. Net Benefits is really the only standard of competition that has ever made sense to me. I have no problem with 'tag team' cross examination per se BUT I do believe that I should use your cross examination is a basis of evaluating your effectiveness as a speaker for purposes of awarding speaker points. Rudeness, ignorance and thoughtlessness only serves to further diminish a small and limited pool of credibility that you might possess. I will always profess to being a student of argument. Anything you can do to build &/or change theory in this area should be an enjoyable experience if done well. Topicality and theory arguments designed to achieve a greater understanding of thought and word CANNOT be engaged meaningfully at two hundred (200) words per minute !!!! Finally, I will always utilize a 'running clock' in a competitive tournament The resolution and time limits are the only rules I we really have in the game. There is no 'down time' in a debate round. You are either speaking or prepping. You just need to let me know which you are doing. Humor and style can't hurt you either ! If you have any questions, just ask. .