Coleman,+Matt

As for my background I debated at Wichita State and was a four-time NDT qualifier with exposure to most different types of argumentation. I have also been coaching high school debate for the last 5 years. My one caveat is that despite being an assistant coach I do not have a lot of familiarity with the topic outside of watching some practice debates so if you strategy is based on something technical within the topic literature it would be in your best interest to spend some time explaining the distinctions you are making, this is particularly true on this topic where acronyms abound.

DA’s: About the only thing that you should know here is that I think Affs are sometimes leery about making true arguments against a contrived DA just because you don’t have evidence to substantiate it, and I think that I am someone that thinks that if you have truth on your side you should use that to your advantage. Which is not to say that you shouldn’t read ev, because you should but you don’t have to pretend the rest of reality doesn’t exist.

CP’s: A specific CP is one of my favorite strategies to see. I err Neg on most CP issues. I generally think conditionality makes sense, as do PICS, although they make more sense when they are a PIC out of something in the plan and not out of a rep or a word PIC those are more debatable. Consult/Condition CPs I am more Aff leaning on Consult, but I think that on both the strength and specificity of the Neg’s evidence is important in deciding those debates and I may have a higher threshold on those issues than others.

Performance: I think there is a resolution for a purpose, which is not to say that you can’t engage in these types of arguments, but fundamentally there needs to be an argument and the more your argument is related to the topic the better off you will be.

K’s: Despite my argumentative choices when debating I do think a good K debate can be very persuasive and strategic. If you choose to deploy this strategy be aware that to increase your chances of winning you will want to engage in a thorough discussion of the world of the alt vs the world of the Aff vs the world of the permutation. Also I am not well read in a lot of critical literature so time needs to be spent on the impact of your argument and what it means in relation to the Aff and explaining your links in terms of the Aff. Bottom line the more time you spend talking about your K in terms of the Aff the better off you will be. Also I generally don’t think most frameworks make sense on either side, the Neg should probably get their K and the Aff should probably get their Aff to weigh against it, you can make arguments counter to this but this is just what makes most sense to me, which is not to say that I don’t think that the Neg can’t win how impact arguments should be evaluated and the relative importance of ontology, ethics etc. vs the consequence of the impact as I think this is something that both sides can make strong inroads on. I think the more persuasive theoretical discussions occur in the discussion of what it is that the alternative does, the structure, means, scope etc. and what that means for the Aff’s ability to answer it.

T: I don’t have a strong inclination either way in the debate between competing interps and reasonability and I think that the topic is important so these debates are fine to have in front of me. Good contextual evidence will get you far in these debates.

CX: I think it’s wasted a lot which is a shame. It’s a great way to not only bump up your speaker points, but also to deal with some of the bad arguments that people make in debate. Don’t waste it and also don’t make it hostile.

Decorum Be friendly. This activity should be fun, you can be competitive but don’t be unnecessarily hostile to your opponents there’s no need for it. Also I haven’t judged any paperless debates before so I’ll try to be as reasonable as I can in situations that may arise and I ask that you do the same. Don’t steal prep time in general, that irritates me. I like humor and appreciate it, also I am one that thinks that there is power in ethos and persuasion so don’t lose sight of that in the end, especially when framing the last rebuttals. Other than that if you have any questions ask.