Beiermeister,+Ryan

I debated at Kinkaid in high school and currently debate for Northwestern University.

The classic judging philosophy line obviously applies--debate what you want to debate and what you are good at. I really don’t care where you fall on the ideological spectrum—just be intelligent and win.

Some general predispositions--**these are defaults that can be swayed if arguments are introduced in the debate that challenge me to do so

=
1) Despite my high school background with K debate, I've pretty much come full circle to view and think about debate the way my Northwestern colleagues and coaches do. Thick evidence comparison, smart and specific strategies, speed, tech--those are the debates I love.=====

=
2) Identifying the nexus question of the debate, and flagging it as such in the rebuttals, is really crucial to my ballot. Debaters should always be making "if...than..." statements in rebuttals, and should gear the entire speech around a crucial outcome.=====

=
3) In terms of counter plan competition, there is a difference between the mandates of the plan and the likely outcomes. Affirmatives that can distinguish between counter plans that aren't competitive because they compete off likely outcomes will go far--and negatives should keep this in mind when debating the permutation.=====

4) The most poignant aff K advice I've ever been taught is from Tristan: the 2AR should __always__ be about the aff. Never spiral into solely debating on the other team's turf--your speeches should dictate the terms of the debate.

=
6) Impact. Be comparative. Debaters hear this all of the time, and never execute. Impacting your arguments not just in terms of "X outweighs Y"--but how each argument you make in a debate interacts with the rest of the flow.=====