Finch,+Steven

Clarification of my paradigm Steven Finch Rate of delivery: Speed is OK but you must be clear. Believe it or not this is possible. I would suggest that if you cannot speed clearly just don’t speed at all. If you are not clear, I’ll yell CLEAR!!! If you are still unclear I will stop writing/typing. Quantity/quality of arguments: I am in favor of as many quality arguments as possible. I want to hear warrants. I want to hear justification for the tag in the evidence. I generally don’t like new in the 2NC (or 2AC unless the 1NC is like 2 minutes). Also try not to go for everything in the 2NR. I would rather see thorough argumentation in the rebuttals rather than general. Communication: This is a public speaking activity so being able to communicate your ideas effectively is very important in my mind. I’d prefer that arguments are subpointed. For example if you have various solvency arguments, number them 1, 2, 3 etc. If you have a disadvantage, label it A. Uniqueness, B. Link, C. Internal Link etc., or in some way that it is easy to figure out what is what. However, in rebuttals especially, resolving pertinent issues in a round are just as important if not more. So in sum, resolve pertinent issues in the round by using effective communication. Topicality: As a tabs, I will listen to topicality. I have voted on it. But I am very technical when it comes to this. At this level I would assume that the T arguments would be in the correct structure. However, I have seen the opposite sometimes. I don’t want to see much reliance on just proving why your interpretation is best because often teams will have valid points as to why their interpretation is best. I also want why the opposing teams interpretation is not justified. If you have the combination of these two you have a better chance of winning T with me. Counterplans: Again I’ll listen to them. I prefer to hear alternate agent CPs or some other different solvency mechanism CP rather than traditional delay and conditions CPs. If you believe that the Affirmative method is not capable of solving but the SQ isn’t either then you better have some method of __action__ for solving the affirmative harms. CP theory is OK to run but if you are Affirmative, make sure there is some offense as well. If you can prove to me that the CP theoretically is illegitimate and won’t solve anyway that is better than just saying the CP is illegitimate. Generic Disadvantages: I’ll listen to them. I would prefer a specific link, however. The more specific the link scenario to case, the probability that the plan would cause the impacts will increase. On the affirmative please don’t rely only on "You can use this disadvantage against any case" or "The link doesn’t say our plan will cause the disadvantage to happen." The first statement sort of grants a link and both are just very defensive. Go on the offense as well. Link turn or Impact turn or prove with evidence that it is non unique (there is much more you can do, these are just examples). Conditional Negative Positions: I agree that most negative positions are conditional anyway. But, if you decide that you are not winning a certain position kick it sooner rather than later. Do it properly. Debate Theory Arguments (meaning CP theory, K theory, and other non T theory): These are fine but again doing it alone if rather defensive and would not go to far if affirmatives respond only in this way. Put it with some offense. Negatives, don’t just not answer theory just because I don’t like it alone as much. It is still your job to answer it. I just find it that it can be easily answered in most cases. Kritiks: I’ll listen to them. But if as a negative you decide to run one make sure you can explain it well; I mean __exceptionally__ well. You have to know the ins and outs of the K. Don’t rely on me to know everything about it. Make sure the structure is there. Also, try to have a concrete alternative. I’d prefer that the alternative was not to reject the affirmative only, unless you intend to defend the SQ as the option that will solve for the K. But you may try to convince me otherwise that the rejection of the affirmative is the best option. Critical Affs are OK to run as well but the same rules apply as if you were a negative