Hobohm,+Thomas

=Thomas Hobohm=

I was a national-circuit policy debater at Southlake Carroll. I attend UNT (while helping coach some HS policy debaters), and am majoring in computer science. I created http://www.pocketbox.net/ for sharing speeches during debate rounds - I prefer it to email chains. I will definitely disclose and give you ample feedback. I heavily focused on high-level technical policy debate and narrative-based critical arguments. I often ran queer theory arguments and high-level criticisms (my last year I ran a queer failure affirmative), however I enjoyed a technical policy debate and collapsing down to a CP / DA. Much of my debate career was driven by building case-specific strategies - I wanted to go with the best argument, regardless of whether it fit into the norms of traditional policy debate. I am somewhat disenchanted with the world of debate - I enjoy competing and judging, but I think the value of the activity is being drained by teams who solely care about winning, coaches who are deliberately petty, and judges who either exclude important critical arguments or will listen to even the most offensive, disrespectful arguments.

Preferably, debate like it is a policy round. I enjoy watching debates with plans (policy affirmatives), counterplans, disadvantages, kritiks, critical affirmatives, topicality, etc. Politics disadvantages are great, as are advantage counterplans and conditionality. I don't care much for criterion / value debates, impact calculus is significantly more important to me. Slow down on plan / counterplan text, RVIs do not exist as far as I am concerned, theory preempts / spikes are not persuasive to me, and speaker points are based off of strategy and clarity. Explanation is important. To steal from Varad, a lack of explanation in the debate round will look as follows:
 * Quick Notes for Lincoln Douglas**

Neg: And the mechanism to my shitty alt is an affirmation of radical Deleuzian joy in the face of the realpolitik of death [ends explanation]. Aff: That's not an argument. RFD: That's probably not an argument.

I find frivolous theory arguments to be frustrating and unconvincing.

I prefer tech over truth. Conditionality is good, the neg should exploit it. I can follow college-level speed, I flow very well, and want you to use PocketBox or an Email chain (hobohm.business@gmail.com). I want you to ask me questions after the round, but I won't change my decision.Here are some important opinions I have about debate:
 * Important Notes (All of these opinions are malleable depending on the arguments made in round)**

1. Disclosure is good - you should use the wiki. If I see that you have made a concentrated effort at disclosing your arguments and improving debate, but your opponents have not, please make an argument about it. At the least it will increase your speaker points. If you are unable to disclose for personal reasons, or because your coach / school disallows it, that argument will be sufficient for me to disregard any other disclosure arguments made in the debate. Another passage I stole from Varad that I agree with greatly:

The affirmative must tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff."

Teams must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA Wiki. Failing to do so will make me sad. It will also result in a loss (likely) if the opposing team reads an argument about why you must disclose. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you.

Two caveats to this. (a) Forgetting to disclose one or two positions does not constitute failing to disclose. (b) If you are debating someone with clearly far less experience, reading disclosure theory will just make me sad and make me ignore your argument and likely dock your speaks.

2. Author qualifications are important - please bring up disparities between the quality of your evidence and the quality of your opponents. It will heavily affect how I view the round. 3. Clarity - I want you to go fast, but if you maintain an exceptional level of clarity with regards to your arguments, and I find the debate easier to follow / flow due to it, you will be rewarded. 4. Control the frame of the debate - meta arguments about impact comparison, theoretical boundaries of debate, and the importance of different debate styles are far more important than line-by-line issues. 5. Ethical violations that result in a loss with 0 speaks: card clipping (accidentally skipping one or two words in a card is not clipping), accusing the other team of an ethical violation falsely or without proof, and stealing cards.
 * 6. In L****incoln Douglas debate, both sides receive flex prep (both sides may use their CX time as preparation time).**

1. Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. impact turns. 2. Using racist, homophobic, and sexist language. 3. Extremely disrespectful in round conduct. 4. Lying about what a card says.
 * Instant Voters**
 * I will instantly vote you down for:**