Conrad,+Daniel

I’m a varsity debater for Trinity University and was previously a varsity policy debater for Monsignor Kelly Catholic in Beaumont, Texas in the Texas Forensic Association circuit between 2012 and 2014 and an LD debater between 2011 and 2012. I coach a few LD debaters from Houston.
 * Debate experience**

If you want an idea of the arguments I read in debates, you should check out my college wiki ([|affirmative] and [|negative]).

First and foremost, I’m a fan of technically-proficient, strategic debating. I’m fine with speed debate (but you //must// prioritize clarity over speed) and I’m very familiar with kritikal debate, but I enjoy listening to all sorts of arguments. Nothing is sacred to me; I love listening to far-left performance debates as much as I enjoy strong topicality and even framework debates against such affs.
 * Judging paradigm—policy and LD**

I’m willing to pull the trigger on theory and don’t have any particularly strong opinions about most theory arguments. “Kritiks are bad for debate” might be a tough sell, but literally anything else—from conditionality to counterplan theory—is certainly fair game. Please slow down for theory. These debates are technical, fast, and sometimes blippy, but you want me to have all of your arguments down. I don't mean to go conversational-speed, but spreading through pre-written theory blocks in the rebuttals is not the way to win these debates.

Policy and critical debate alike are great, just be sure to be smart on the flow. The demonstration of strategic vision and situational awareness will be rewarded with speaker points. Similarly, strong signposting and being able to guide me to distinct parts of the debate (from overviews to line-by-line to different flows) is very much appreciated; poor behavior on the flow will probably be penalized.

Despite my experience with K debate, you shouldn't assume that I know everything about the theory you’re reading—your link, impact, and alternative explanations should be sufficiently clear so that I can justify articulating why I voted for the kritik to your opponent. Core concepts don’t need to be //re-//explained in the last rebuttals, especially if significant time has been spent on them in cross-examination, but it’s always good to be able to effectively respond to generic and specific responses on the line-by-line with nuanced takes on your critical theory.

With regard to LD frameworks and philosophical debates that aren't kritikal: I love it. Policy debate doesn't have enough ethical deliberation, and watching framework throw-downs is great. Just make sure to explain everything well enough for me to understand. When you're learning to be an actual philosopher, you're taught to write in such a way that a reasonably intelligent college student would understand; similarly, you shouldn't come in with the notion that I already know the bulk of the literature behind your framework, because I probably don't. But I'd love to, so this shouldn't keep you from going for the NC instead of the impact turns (as fun as both options are!).

Debate is fun, and debate is a game. Debate can be personally meaningful and rewarding, but don't forget that it's a competition. Identity politics and personal arguments are a great inclusion in debates, but at the end of the round I have to make a decision, and there's a winner and a loser. Don't take any loss personally.

Everything written above holds true for public forum debaters, generally; as weird as it is to hear about kritiks and theory in public forum, I understand that these arguments are becoming more popular, and I'm fine with you reading them. Don't let that make it sound as if I'm unreceptive to traditional PF debate, though. I should emphasize that I will evaluate the debate based on who is winning the most important arguments. Your job is to focus the debate to a few issues that you're winning and prove that they outweigh any issues your opponents might be winning. I'm not looking for techy line-by-line here, but responding to your opponents' warrants and extending your most important arguments is crucial if you want me to be persuaded to vote for you. The worst is trying to vote after a PF round with very little, or very unfocused, clash—making my job easier will be rewarded in speaker points!
 * Judging paradigm**—**PF**

I figured it'd be helpful to put a list of my default positions on theoretical issues in debates, so here goes. This is just a guideline of how I'll consider things if these aren't ever brought up in a debate, but I can be persuaded otherwise in a round no problem. - Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies. - Presumption goes aff if the 2NR advocates anything other than the status quo. - Drop the argument, not the team, unless I'm told otherwise. - I will not judge-kick an advocacy unless I'm told to. - Dropped arguments are usually true, but persuasion is persuasive. - On that note, smart analytics are way better than mediocre cards.
 * Theoretical concerns**

Impress me and you'll get more; I've noticed that I'm a speaks fairy as it is. Maybe I'm too easily impressed, but things like clearly spreading, clear and technical line-by-line, well-executed strategic moves, and going for theory well are all pretty neat stuff that should happen more often.
 * Speaker points**

I'm a big fan of discussing rounds in great depth after the round, but tournaments rarely allow for the time needed to really dissect a good round. E-mail me anytime at dancon25@gmail.com if you want to discuss a round in greater detail, or find me around the tournament and we can discuss stuff in our free time.
 * Contact information**

Shout-out to Darya for being a cool badass, y'all LD folk should pref her highly. Shout-out to Dorko for being a cutie patootie and a good partner and judge!