Pollard,+Tim

Hi. This is Tim Pollard. Currently with University of Washington and Ingraham High School.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. The interesting part about the game is that the rules themselves are subject to deliberation. This has a few implications.

I think that the resolution is an important and relevant aspect of the debate round, and that affirmatives should present some advocacy based on the resolution (though some of the most interesting bits often occur at the edges/slippages around/behind the resolution).

I am (generally) not a fan of arguments that deny the relevance or ability of the other team to participate in the conversation.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument presented. There are aspects of critical/policy/other styles that I like and dislike, and think that the most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended.

I do not understand the office/defense paradigm and wholly believe in sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

I tend to be critical of claims that shape of argument controls function of argument.

I like clever/well-thought-out theoretical arguments against counterplans/permutations. I tend to err negative on non-fiat theory issues. Statements are not arguments unless they contain a claim and a justification for that claim. “They dropped it” is not a justification. The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I find it difficult to endorse positions that require black-boxing to model.

Please do not analogize arguments like permutation/T/etc as general forms of violence (rape/genocide/etc). You can defs win that those are inacceptable strategies in response to your position, but please employ nuance and deeper explanation why the mode of response the other team has employed is problematic in your context than just “they are the bad thing”.