Bagwell,+Dan

Debated for Samford for 4 years, coached at Wake Forest for 2 years.

Long story short: every issue is up for debate, and these preferences are just loose guidelines. In most cases I default to a policymaking paradigm and feel that the aff should probably defend the resolution, but that's also an issue to be settled by the debaters.

Case debate: When handled well, the case is usually the most interesting part of the debate. There’s nothing I’d like judging more than a good DA/case debate (or even an impact-turned advantage or two, if you’re feeling bold). An underutilized strategy by most aff teams is kicking out of advantages; it’s often a safer bet to just go all in on one rather than trying to win everything in the 2AR. Recent evidence is also ideal; I’ll not likely be swayed by “no Indo-Pak war” cards from 2004.

Disadvantages: I was the sort of 1NR that took Politics for 6 minutes in most debates- that being said, it is refreshing to see the neg go for a good secondary disad rather than relying on the same copy-pasted Politics DA each round.

Counterplans: I'm a big fan of CP creativity, especially with regard to advantage CPs. Things that are probably good: reasonably limited conditionality, PICs, advantage CPs. Things that are probably bad: CPs that compete off plan certainty, word PICs, conditional CP planks. Multiple CPs that do the aff are probably unfair.

Kritiks: Having been a mostly policy debater, I don’t prefer them. That doesn’t mean you should avoid reading them; I would just rather hear specific link stories over generics like the Security K. I have probably done substantially less research into your K than you have, so don’t take my knowledge of your jargon for granted. Having a clear alternative that solves is important, as is making sure the aff can’t leverage their impacts against the criticism. I’m very inclined to privilege specific, verifiable impacts over generic ones like “you justify violence.”

Topicality: I love a good T debate, not so much when it comes to A-Spec. No strong preference on reasonability vs. competing interpretations. Caselists are a must.

General tips: - Evidence comparison is important and a good way to boost speaker points. - Humor is good for speaker points. - Cross-ex is binding. - Being friendly to your opponents should be a given; if you’re a jerk, I’ll make sure your speaker points reflect it.