Quigley,+Dylan


 * Dylan Quigley **
 * Affiliation: Policy debate coach for Harvard and Glenbrook South **
 * Debated for University of Kansas for 5 years, 4th year coaching college debate. **
 * Updated: August, 2014 **

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate. I like good evidence and logical arguments over pure tech. I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

**CPs:** I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cps - I’m especially interested in the way they constrain the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.”


 * [I want more] Case debate:** Good, deep case debate is tragically a rare unicorn in much of high school debate. This makes me sad and probably increases the chances of you losing. Good case debate is also the quickest way to higher speaks. This applies as much to a K debate as a DA debate.

**Critiques:** I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. That said, I find myself increasingly turned off by a lot of absolutist social theory. I think many critiques are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more. In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

**T:** Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

It’s hard for me to say exactly how I lean on non-topical or “non-traditional” affirmatives. As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. As a judge, I think teams should feel comfortable doing either of those things in front of me. I think that the question of the debateability of the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim are very important. (Put differently, what is it that is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented? This is the question I always yearn to have asked or answered.)
 * A note on topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives: **

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one important way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify the abstract power of “the permutation” and develop new ways of thinking about competition. Additionally, I think that rigid standards of exclusivity have been one factor that channel research away from nuanced and thoughtful authors/literature bases that may not make the kind of “strong” claims that debate tends to fetishize. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.
 * A note on competition in non-traditional debates: **

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.
 * A note on conditionality/judge choice: **

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.
 * A note on side bias/case debate: **

I have discovered that I am very turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on the anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "**trolling**" is a word you could use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. I may not be a good judge for you if your argument is against making the world a better place in some way.
 * I may not be a good judge for you if: **

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true. -It really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX. -I really like impact turn debates. -I believe zero risk is possible for the purposes of deciding a debate. -I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument. -An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.
 * Misc But Important: **

-I think 28 is an average performance at the particular tournament. -I don’t think I’ve ever given above a 29.5. -I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident. -These things are very much open to change and revision.
 * Speaker points: **