Noethe,+Brad

Name: Brad Noethe

I'll just cover few of the things that most debaters question within paradigms.


 * Speed:**

I'm fine with speed, just signpost and give good impacts and analysis with extensions. If I can't hear you, I'll yell clear. I'll keep yelling clear if I can't understand you again, and I'll always keep flowing. Extensions need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you just say "extend Foucault, so people die," I will not evaluate that as an extension. If your opponent doesn't properly extend an argument, demonstrating your opponent didn't during your rebuttal is a compelling argument. Also, use the rhetoric "extend" when you want to extend an argument.


 * Theory:**

I believe theory is the only way to check abuse and to avoid a race to the bottom in terms of argumentation, so yes, I will vote for theory.

I will vote on theory, just make sure you give clear instances of abuse and how it impacts in the round enough for me to vote there. Merely providing that fairness was violated I don't believe is sufficient. Tell me why violating some theory standard is a sufficient reason for me to vote there. Despite the fact that many don't run theory well, I do enjoy hearing it when it is run well. I would like to hear theory when it is genuine, but if the shell is won, I will vote for it, even if the abuse was a bit questionable. Debaters should be able to beat bad shells. I also believe that theory is bi-directional. However, if the shell itself is ignored, generic turns don't matter.

I'm not a big fan of abusive strategies run with the intention of drawing theory in order to use multiple rvi's and theory turns. However, I will accept rvi's, particularly if the negative is running theory, but I will NOT if you are running rvi's and your initial strategy involved multiple a priori arguments, necessary but insufficient neg standards, or multiple conditional counterplans. It is definitely not the best way, or even a good way, to get my ballot. If your opponent is using abusive arguments, running theory would probably be a good strategy. I think most of the theory turns and rvi's that are used when abusive suck and I am much, much more likely to buy arguments against them. I'm not a theory hack, but I think theory is a legitimate tool to check abuse. Rvi's need to impact to some interpretation or notion of debate or the purpose thereof. I.e. if fairness is not a voter, then rvi's on why theory is unfair don't matter. Also, weigh the rvi against the initial violation or explain how the rvi functions in relation to the shell or the round as a whole.

As an aside, I think too many affirmatives are spending about a minute of theory in the 1AR and then just extending theory doesn't matter in the 2AR to counter theory bad dumps. Many of these rounds are nearly impossible for the affirmative to win if they don't go for theory, as their 1AR strategy was skewed in order to run theory. Too many debaters I'm noticing are giving up the theory debate rather than digging down and trying to answer these arguments. This isn't to say to get my ballot you need to avoid extending theory bad arguments in the 2AR, I'm just saying if you are losing badly on the flow, sometimes theory is your only out. This isn't necessarily a paradigmatic observation, rather just an observation of the current trend of debate.

I will not vote for case disclosure theory. If you are for or against case disclosure, cool, but I don't want to see debate rounds be altered by something that amounts to a philosophical difference in a debate trend, particularly when such theory shells are not substantially answered, nor do they create truly productive in round discourse. Additionally, debaters should not be harmed based upon decisions of their coaches on the philosophy of meta debate issues. If that pisses you off or makes you want to strike me, please do so.

I will vote for T, but give me a voter. If you don't give me a voter, it only gives me a reason to reject the argument. I typically think that rvi's on T are bogus, but I will vote for them if won.


 * Policy type argumentation:**

Plans: I like hearing plans if they are well developed and give a good impact scenario. I think plans, however, do need to have either some form of standard or some framework justifying why I evaluate arguments in any particular fashion, as impacts only matter inasmuch as there is some notion established of what is good or ought be done.

Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans as long as they have competitiveness. It seems obvious, but counterplans need to have mutual exclusivity. I'm not a huge fan of pics, and I think they may invite theory or T, but I will vote for them if won. I think multiple conditional counterplans are abusive, and definitely invite theory.

Disads: I like disads, if they are actually applicable. I think generic disads aren't as good as affirmative plan specific disads, but I understand specific disads for every potential affirmative advocacy is impossible, so I will accept generic disads as long as the link work is sufficient.


 * Pre standards/A priori:**

I don't mind apriori, but tell me why I should evaluate the argument before the standards. That being said, the more of those type of arguments that you run, the more sympathetic I become to theory.


 * Critical arguments/Kritiks**

I like hearing critical arguments if you've developed them and understand the argument. If you don't understand or can't validate and support your reasoning, your speaks will suffer, and it will be difficult for me to vote for you. I'm most familiar with Nietzsche and Foucault, so you can go quickly if running them. For other authors I should be fine, but if I give you a funny look, you may want to slow down.

If you have a weird or new argument you want to try with me, by all means do try it. You should do whatever you believe will be most strategic for you to win the round. I won't reject an argument on face that has a warrant. If an argument is dumb, it should be easy to beat. I think that K's need an alternative, unless there is framework to justify the lack of one.


 * Speaks:**

Typically my speaks are about a 27. I award speaker points solely based upon quality of argumentation. As long as I can understand you, your speaks will not be affected at all by speaking skills. I will typically be staring down at the flow during the entirety of the speech time, so I don't mind if you avoid eye contact or sit while you speak. If you are bad, I will not hesitate to give speaks in the range of 24-25. If you are good, I will not hesitate to give you a 30. I give harsh speaks to those who do poorly, but I also give out a large number of 28's 29's and 29.5's, so if you expect to clear at a tournament, I'm not worth a strike due to speaker points. I am becoming more of a point fair

It is much easier for me to know where to vote if you provide me with some weighing. It is not paramount by any means to achieve my ballot, but it is preferred and makes decision making much easier.

I really don't have a preference as to where I vote. I'll vote wherever, just tell me why I should vote there and how you are winning that argument. That being said, I default to the standards if you don't tell me to vote anywhere else. I don't presume a particular way unless told to do so.


 * Random Stuff:**

I think if your opponent calls for your case or cards, you should give it to them. If you don't, I won't be too happy about it, and your speaks will probably suffer. There is no good reason to hide your case. Also, if you ask clarification questions of the case while you have it, I believe your opponent has a right to look at the case to explain something to you. Wait for your opponent to set down the page he or she is reading before you go to grab it if he or she is reading it, and make sure you don't make a scene or anything when getting it. Also, I expect debaters to answer questions during prep time, and I'm fine with flex prep, as long as the neg had the opportunity to use it in the first cross ex period. I don't care how you dress, as long as you are moderately clothed.

If you have any other questions, ask me before the round and I'll be happy to answer them. Good luck and have fun. This is your game. Do with it what you will.