Siems,+Lane

I debated 3 years at Little Rock Central in high school

Paperless: I stop prep when the flash drive is pulled from the computer. Please try to be efficient with speech flashing times or I might get annoyed.

In general, I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions. I also think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments.

In terms of decorum, debaters should be respectful of each other, if you aren’t your speaker points will suffer.

I would prefer debaters do what they are best at, rather than try to fit within my specific argument preferences.

In terms of specific arguments:

Topicality: I like T. I lean towards C/I and the standards debate is important to me; I need to see how T effects the rest of the debate.

Disadvantages: I really enjoy them. I think I’m pretty similar to most everyone in these debates-specificity is always better than being generic, and warranted impact calculus is necessary to win the debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy a well thought out counterplan. I lean affirmative on the theoretical legitimacy of consult, conditions, and PICs but can be persuaded that they are legitimate. If the counterplan text is long and complicated you should slow down so I can flow it. I’ll need warranted explanation of why the counterplan solves the aff and is net beneficial to vote for it.

Criticisms: I enjoy Ks. I have not read a lot of of critical literature, but have no problem understanding critical literature. I have debated a lot of it and will probably have at least heard of whatever argument you are reading. This does not mean you shouldn't explain your argument or only speak in jargon even if I understand it. Links should always be contextualized in the context of the affirmative even if there are not cards for every link. There needs to be warrants to all the arguments; don’t just say value to life outweighs or ontology first you have to explain why that is true. I think if you haven't mitigated the case in some way it makes it harder to win the K.

K affs: I enjoy and have read K affs. I tend to lean affirmative on framework questions, but can be persuaded by it. An aff without a plan must have strong warranted reasons that it is justifiable in framework debates in order to win. If you are reading framework against a k aff having a topicality portion of the argument makes it a voting issue where it might otherwise not be. K affs with a topical plan I think are almost always legitimate but can be extra topical. I think a lot of times these affs make ridiculous claims that could be mitigated by the negative having a case debate and engaging the aff with reasoned arguments.

Theory: I have a low threshold for theory. I enjoy warranted theory debates but teams must engage each other’s arguments. Don’t just read your blocks at each other approach theory like every other argument. You should have warranted responses to their argument that include disadvantages to the other teams interpretation and reasons that yours is preferable. Don’t just blaze through theory debates at full speed or I won’t be able to flow it.

Cross-examination: it’s important. A well executed cross x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the debate.