Snider,+Tommy

I have a very diverse background when it comes to debate. In high school (Owasso) I competed on a very traditional circuit and, occasionally, on the national circuit. In college (University of Oklahoma) I was primarily a “flex” debater” but I was also coached by, and learned from, some of the best “k” and “non-traditional” coaches in country. My coaching “style” follows a similar pattern. Debate is a unique activity that allows for a plethora of arguments, styles, and worldviews (that would traditionally separated by academic discipline or specialization) to clash against one another. Simply put, I love debate for its diversity.

Education Topic Specific States CP/50 State Fiat - I'm going to be blunt, 50 state fiat bad is pretty close to a nonstarter for me on the education topic. I think the affirmative absolutely needs specific reasons why the federal government is a better agent than the states. This doesn't need to be a “hard” justification like jurisdiction; it could be some specific solvency deficit arguments. That said I still think there are other, more effective, theory args to read. Just because I think the negative should get the States CP does not mean all versions and CP texts are created equal (I'm looking at you Lopez). For example, a lot of States CPs don't have specific solvency advocates (or one at all) and some have extra arbitrary planks to get out of strategic weaknesses. Theory attacking those are likely to go a lot farther in front of me than 50 state fiat bad.

More generally

Kritiks - I’ve been coached by some of the best K coaches in the country and a common theme among them, which has been ingrained in my mind, has been: “You are not a philosopher, you are a debater.” This should be your guiding principle when reading a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. There are also a lot of different parts the kritiks that debaters just take advantage of. For example, most, but not all, Ks have an explanation on how the world operates. Instead of using this theory as a way to leverage the K against the aff, negs are spending time on FW making generic arguments (judge is a scholar or discourse first) that rarely do much for them. There are so many tools that Ks offer negative teams that they’re just not taking advantage of. Topic specific Ks are almost always better than random Ks with cards that say the word “education.”

On Evidence Evidence quality and consistency is really important to me. Teams should point out when evidence is really bad (looking at you politics DA).

Tech vs Truth I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards truth than tech. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm. There is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I really enjoy “clash of civilizations” debates. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards. Common reasons I vote aff on FW: The Neg goes for too many “standards” in the 2NR. The Neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW: The Aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad. The Aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

FW’s record in front of me this year: 2-0 FW’s record in front of me last year: 3-4

Disads See “tech vs truth” and “On Evidence.” If your politics DA isn't logically consistent then I probably won't vote for it. You should interrogate evidence quality and author qualifications (applies to advantages too).

Guaranteed 29.5 if you’re 100% paper debate team #PaperDebate