Hansen,+Cory

High School: Oxford Academy

Nothing below is set in stone, nor is this necessarily what I believe about debate, just what I think I think about debate. If you want to know what I actually think about debate, talk to those I've coached and debated with and against - they'll probably have a more objective view of myself than I will. I debated on the national circuit in high school, so I can flow and am fine with whatever arguments you read. I'm not actively coaching or debating now, so assume I have no knowledge of your topic area. I don't care if you're rude or aggressive. Originality will get you a lot of points in my book.

Specifics:

CP/DA - I enjoy a specific CP debate, despite my preferences when I debated (those were strategic choices, not necessarily ideological). Defense goes a long way with me. I'm not going to vote on .0001% chance of a link.

T - Sure. AFFs don't necessarily need to be topical and I'm not adverse to Ks of T. The better Ks of T will be contextualized within your affirmative, not just some Bleiker or Butler or Deleuze evidence. I'm going to default to Competing interpretations.

Theory - It's assumed to be a reason to reject the argument not the team unless shown otherwise. Slow down. Your generic F/W block against the K is not going to be persuasive, you're just going to sound lazy and whiny.

Kritiks - Please don't read one because you think it's an easy win. I love a good K debate and abhor a bad one. The difference lies in how well the team understands their arguments and how specifically they can apply them. Please don't say "pre-Fiat." Also, K debaters, unless you're reading a Reps/Language K or Ontology K, that Framework block probably doesn't apply. 2As, please be specific with your perms. It'll help you out.

Any questions, ask.