McDonald,+Dylan

Fort Lauderdale High School 2010-2014 I competed all four years both locally and nationally and am currently a volunteer coach for Metro HS.

Clarity over speed Depth over breadth Do not go blazing fast through theory blocks, I’m only human I will say clear twice if I don’t understand you after the second time I will stop flowing Tech over truth, a dropped argument is a true argument (That being said if somebody reads timecube or some other non-educational argument, you can just say this is stupid and useless for the educational purpose of debate, moving on.) I will call for cards if 1. One team is calling out a card and there is a dispute about what it says 2. I have to so I can resolve a certain question. Great evidence is great but it is not a substitute for debating. Zero percent risk is a thing
 * In general**:


 * Short Version**: I’m open to everything. I’ve had affs that are 8 minutes of heg and my senior year I read an aff without a plan text. I’ve read sketchy Ks and done just T or DA and case. I just want the best debate round possible, do what you’re best at, my only preference is I prefer an in depth warranted debate rather than throwing stuff against a wall and seeing what they drop and going for that. That being said, in my mind a dropped argument is a true argument but just because it’s dropped does not mean you win the round, you have to explain the implications of the argument and how it affects the entirety of the case or DA or whatever.


 * Longer version**


 * T**: Standards, standards, standards. Of course you need to win they don’t meet your interpretation but I think this debate mostly comes down to whose standards are better and how they interact with one another. I’ve been leaning more towards reasonability because sometimes negative T violations are just read as a time suck. That being said, if you think the aff is untopical go for it, I don’t mind pulling the trigger on a T argument that seems stupid but is really hashed out in terms of the standards and its importance.


 * Theory**: If a neg is going for theory you’re going to have a bad time with me. Unless the aff just like read a new plan in the 1ar, it’s barely ever going to be a reason to reject the team. However, feel free to use theory arguments to hedge back against substance ie severance perm=reject the perm is fine with me if you explain why its severance and why that’s bad. For the aff, even as a 2a I thought that theory had just turned into whining. I think 1 conditional is definitely ok, 2 is probably ok, 3 is on the brink. You can go for conditionality against 2 condo (I mean I have) but again, like in T, hash out the arguments and just win the stuff, I’ll be able to follow along. Some CPs are inherently abusive (cough consult cp cough) I’ll vote on specific theories to reject cps but if they kick in the neg block it’ll be hard for me to drop the team if they kick it in the 2nr it will be easier but still mehh, I’d prefer substance if you can win on it. Lots of counterplans are sketchy nowadays, specific cp theory>generic conditionality bad.


 * DA**: I love in depth disad debates. The more specific obviously the better, but I still do like the politics DA and other generic Das. I default to uniqueness controlling the direction of the link but can be convinced otherwise. I think if you have a sick link wall though, it makes the affs life a lot harder. IMPACT CALCULUS IS KEY. If you want me to vote on a Disad I’m going to need some impact calculus, DA turns case, DA solves case, something like that because without those the aff is usually going to outweigh. I will vote on zero risk of a DA if needed but affs should always try to read offense on DAs


 * Case**: Beating an aff on their own aff was one of the most satisfying feelings I had as a negative. Depth>breadth as always. If you can give me 4 different warranted reasons as to why the US is not key to the economy it will be easier to win compared to 4 different answers about an economy advantage. Impact defense is the good stuff, I read it every round and was all I would go for on case often times. Also specific solvency take outs are great too but again I’m always more for quality than quantity. 1 card with 4 warrants, tell me each of the warrants and what they mean, those are independent arguments the aff has to respond to in my mind. I think case debate is underrated by negatives and looked over by affirmatives, just because it you’re aff doesn’t mean you automatically win it.


 * Kritiks**: If you don’t understand it don’t read it, if you do, read whatever you like. As long as you can explain what you are criticizing you should be good. Please have multiple links on a K, good link debates are great and can take out lots of the case offense. I know about all of the mainstream kritiks and many that aren’t mainstream as well ie psychoanalysis or object oriented ontology. I will not fill in the blanks for you, just because I know what the alternative does, doesn’t mean you don’t have to say it, just know I understand what you’re saying. If you’re reading a K please read an alt, it’s hard (not impossible) to win without one. As an affirmative, the alternative is the weakest portion of the K usually. If you don’t think a K links, there’s a good chance it might not. Combine a permutation with offense if you’re going to go for one. Framework is key, if the negative wins framework you will most likely lose as an aff. Weigh your aff against the K and besides framework, theory isn’t going to do much for you in front of me against a K. Generic answers are fine by me but if it’s a mainstream K please also have specific answers. Don’t just throw around buzzwords, contextualize and explain where necessary.


 * Cps**: Don’t read super sketchy process CPs in front of me ie commissions. I’d rather hear CPs that relate more to the topic, that doesn’t mean conditions and consult enter this idea of CPs I’d like to hear. I enjoy the solvency debates and solvency mechanisms of CPs, I want to know what you do and why it solves the aff or if it solves better. Internal net benefits are fine, external are just usually more strategic. I will not kick a CP for you. I think solvency deficits are crucial and not just naming it but quantifying it. Optimal vs sufficient is how the negative should frame to CP, you don’t have to be the best option as long as you solve, here is where quantifiable solvency deficits matter IE some solvency deficit means a CP doesn’t solve an advantage not that it’s just not the best option.


 * Non-traditional debate**: It’s fine with me. If you’re going to go for framework in front of these arguments I want to hear more creative arguments than just, we can’t predict it so they should lose. You know these arguments exist, you can predict it and it’s just not a good argument. I read a non plan text aff last year so I know how they work and I’m comfortable judging them whether its voting for it on framework, against it, or voting on competing methodologies. I think the question of what education is useful and why is a critical question in these debates, why is the education one side provides better than others ie out of round skills.

Have fun, it was the best part of my 4 years in high school, I love the activity and think its super valuable and please be respectful of your opponents.