Panneck,+Travis

Mediocre Policy debater at Eagan High School, MN (2004-2008) Assistant Coach at Eagan High School (2008-)


 * QUICK GUIDE TO ADAPTATION (12/17/2015)**
 * 0. Run what you want, but be prepared to defend it. It's not my job to decide if an argument is morally repugnant, it's yours. No argument is an auto-loss (consult counterplans come pretty close, though).**
 * 1. Organize your speeches. I like numbers and letters. I especially like when those numbers and letters are used in later speeches to refer to arguments. "Embedded clash" doesn't flow well for me. **
 * 2. Links matter. If you can't demonstrate a link to the plan/advocacy, the position will not matter to me. The state is not a link. Not talking about something is not a link. The wrong starting point is not a link. "Surveillance is controversial" is a link, but a weak one. (If you're on the other side of these arguments, make no link arguments or simple permutations. I'll vote on them.) **
 * 3. Fairness doesn't need an external impact and is my default highest priority on theoretical issues. If you're not defending the resolution as an affirmative, you will need a good explanation for why this is fair for the negative.**
 * 4. I tend to ignore claims when they lack warrants. "Role of the ballot" claims are especially vulnerable to this process.**

Debate is a game and the goal of the game is to have the better argument. I evaluate all speech made in a round through this lens (including "role of the ballot" claims) and am mostly implacable with regards to that opinion. Here are some specifics:


 * GENERAL**
 * The resolution?** Yes. I think it’s easily defended, but have voted for affirmatives that explicitly don’t defend it.
 * Performance / non-traditional speeches?** Yes, but I’ll be way more impressed if they’re topical or responsive to case.
 * Cheap shots?** Probably, but they need to have an impact.
 * Calling cards?** No.
 * Speaker points?** 27. 26.5 when the weather’s bad.
 * How do I decrease my speaker points?** You’re impolite in non-productive ways or act in ways that show you don’t care about the round or your opponents.
 * How do I increase my speaker points?** More if you make strategic decisions, spend a lot of time on case, make the 1NR matter, get me to vote on an argument I dislike, or conduct a great cross-examination.
 * What if the tournament provides a set of speaker point guidelines?** I will follow those. Very judiciously. You'll probably end up with fewer points on average.
 * Speed?** Yes, but put appropriate pauses between tag, cite, and evidence to increase speaker points and likelihood that I’ll be able flow your arguments. Slow down for analytics and especially for theory.
 * Will you yell "clear" at me or ask me to slow down?** Clarity is on you. I'm pretty transparent (just not audibly transparent) when I can't flow you, so look up once in awhile.
 * How many issues in a debate?** “When accessorizing, always take off the last thing you put on.”
 * Line-by-line debate?** Yes. I flow in the usual way, so letting me know where to put your arguments is great if you want me to keep track of what they are.
 * What constitutes an argument?** Tag-line extensions may be enough to "keep an argument alive," but I will likely ignore any analysis in later speeches that is outside what is said in the extension. I am especially harsh on 1ARs here.
 * Spin vs. evidence?** Spin is the game. I will vote on things I know to be untrue if the other team isn't calling you out on it.
 * Offense-defense paradigm?** No. I can and will vote on nothing but case defense if the impact is *literally* zero solvency / harms. Even just severely mitigated case is enough for me if it's explained well.
 * Uniqueness/Link/Impact?** Focus on the links. Uniqueness debates bore me if they’re solely post-date arguments, and reading a bunch of impacts is only worthwhile when a position is completely dropped. Compelling link stories make me really happy.
 * Tag-team cross-examination?** It will lower your speaker points if it’s excessive.
 * Prompting?** No, unless your partner's about to drop the permutation.
 * Is "flashing" prep time?** No. I would prefer that you have the speech document on the flash drive before I stop prep time, but in practice, if everyone saves and moves files pretty quickly, just tell me to stop prep time when you're finished modifying the file.
 * 2NRs?** I am your biggest advocate and regularly ignore 2AR arguments if I think they're the slightest bit new.
 * Do you disclose your decision?** Yes, unless directed not to.
 * Will you give an oral critique? **Yes. I will also write how I decided the round on the ballot, and in some cases, additional comments where warranted.


 * SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS**
 * Preferred negative strategies (sorted by likeliness to vote, high to low)?** T > case + DA > DA + CP > K + anything > CP that only competes via politics > other theory > case impact turns
 * Kritiks?** Yes, most familiar with Foucault, Heidegger and the development literature and comfortable with other critiques of state power and political economy. You’ll probably need to spend a lot more time on the link level on less straightforward authors.
 * Alternatives?** Don’t need to have them, I’m comfortable with kritiks argued as a “gateway issue.”
 * Politics?** Yes, but I am more willing to listen to intrinsicness arguments here than anywhere else.
 * Consult / Conditions CP?** Not if you want to increase your chance of winning. “Perm: Do the counterplan,” is usually enough for me here. “Severing immediacy of plan” is maybe my least favorite argument.
 * PICs?** Yes (I’ll still consider PICs bad theory, though).
 * Floating PICs?** Yes, but the earlier the better if you don’t want to send me into a shame spiral. You’ll want some sort of solvency evidence if you don’t want these claims easily dismissed.
 * Exclusionary frameworks?** Yes, but you’re probably going to need a pretty good defense of why a particular argument should be excluded. If your framework is something along the lines of “the team that does X the best,” where X is the impact of your argument, the other team will barely have to breathe on this argument to make it go away. I am similarly unimpressed with claims about education made to defend a "scary Ks bad, policy good"-type framework. I've voted on all these arguments, though.
 * Evolutionary psychology arguments?** You’ll get anywhere from a 1-3 point drop in speaker points if you make one, but I will consider them.
 * Realism?** Doesn’t answer much, but you’re IR savvy and know that already.
 * Focus on process / policy paralysis?** I don't particularly like this as an impact because it seems pretty difficult to compare to other impacts.
 * Moral imperatives / ethics / value to life impacts?** Have a good reason why I shouldn't compare this directly to the # of dead bodies or use them as a trump with other impacts, because unless they're dropped you're going to lose vs. big wars.
 * Other stuff you're concerned about?** Ask me before the round.


 * THEORY**
 * Preferred theory arguments (sorted by likeliness to vote, high to low)?** Topicality > justification > good plan flaws > FIAT theory (object, international, 50 state, etc.) > counterplan topicality theory > counterplan type theory (consult, PICs, conditions) > advocacy dispositionality theory (conditionality, etc.) > exclusionary frameworks (policymaking good, etc.) > specification > vagueness (alternatives and plans) > permutation theory > bad plan flaws
 * Theory as a voter?** Yes, but probably more strategic and useful as a way of getting rid of arguments you don’t know how to answer on substance.
 * Affirmative theory?** Yes, but Actual Abuse™ is probably the most persuasive tool for you here.
 * Topicality?** Yes. It’s my favorite argument and no affirmative is “gut-feeling” topical. I like contextual definitions and lots of work on the standards.
 * Reverse voters on topicality?** See "Cheap shots" above and raise the threshold a couple notches.
 * Permutations?** They’re tests of competition. If they’re argued to be advocated, pretty likely easily dismissed by a “moving target” claim.
 * Philosophically competitive advocacies?** Please no.
 * Severance perms?** Things OK to sever: ideological reasons for doing plan, "immediacy" of plan, "certainty" of plan; Things not OK to sever: entire plan planks
 * Intrinsic perms?** I'm willing to hear "logical policymaker"-type arguments.
 * Permutation texts?** They should probably exist if it's not a logical or obvious permutation. I don't find "Perm: Do plan and all non-competitive portions of the alternative" very persuasive and this is one of the reasons.