Bryant,+Hunter

Will receive degree in Political Rhetoric/Management in Fall, 2015.
 * __Background:__**
 * Onalaska HS (TX):** 2009-2013, CX.
 * Texas State University:** 2013-Present, National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) and Worlds Universities Debating Championship (WUDC).

Assistant coach at Onalaska HS: 2013-Present.
 * __Coaching History:__**

CX Philosophy

I really hate intervening. Try to make it clear who won the round and why; better arguments, not better teams, will win the round for you. I'll vote on pretty much anything on the flow so long as it's well-warranted and its role in the round is properly explained.

I have a "big issues" philosophy. Depth is definitely better than breadth; clash with and win your opponent's arguments instead of trying to outsmart/outmaneuver them. It hurts both teams' education and makes you look nasty and you'll see that reflected on your speaks. Don't be afraid to engage in the debate the resolution/1AC is asking you to. For affirmatives, that means 1) don't squirrel to avoid clash; and 2) Don't be abusively/unpredictably nontopical. For negatives, don't rely on defense as a strategy. I have a huge problem with strategies that rely on "they dropped one card on Inherency, so they lose." Make your arguments count, make them outweigh, and give me good impact calculus (don't focus solely on magnitude either). I'm well versed in critical literature, but assume that I'm not (because odds are your opponents aren't). Explain the practical functions in the round, and make sure your impacts are tangible.

I don't have a problem with speed if **you** don't have a problem with speed. For the most part, I'll try to go with how you decide to debate. You can go as fast as makes you happy, but keep in mind that 1) you have to still be able to enunciate, 2) your opponents need to understand you, and 3) I have to understand you. I'll yell clear once and then stop flowing if I absolutely cannot understand you. I do a lot of work to flow warrants with claims. Make it easy for me to do that and you'll be well-rewarded.

CPs, DAs, and case debates are wonderful. I appreciate T and theory, but make sure there's a real abuse link.

I tend to be stingy with speaker points. I start at about 25 and increase/decrease based on how the round plays out. Racist/homophobic/sexist, etc. language will see you tank really quickly, as will being disrespectful. I'm not afraid to do low point wins.

Don't steal prep. It's cheating. Be efficient when at all possible. I'll keep tabs on prep.