Conrad,+Neil

NAME: Neil Conrad AFFILIATION: None/Hired

In high school, I debated for the Texas Military Institute on both local and national circuits (2000-2004). I am a former assistant LD coach at Greenhill (2004-2010), a former curriculum director and instructor at VBI (2004-2010), and a former instructor at Mean Green Workshops (2006-2010). I no longer teach or coach at any school or camp. I am conflicted against Greenhill.

Since 2010, I have not judged a round, so I am not up to speed on what is in vogue these days and what is not. That doesn't mean I'm not interested; it just means you'll have to be careful not to rely on national circuit shorthand in lieu of explanation.

I. GENERAL

In general, I will base my decision on the arguments the debaters advance and not their presentation or my personal opinions about the topic.

II. STANDARDS

I will default to the value/criterion model as the standard for determining which arguments matter with respect to the resolution unless I am told to look elsewhere first. If that is the case, I will evaluate arguments that are labeled “pre-standard” if and only if a sufficient justification for that status is attached to the argument and clearly explained. Let me stress that I will not vote for an argument simply because of its label even if the opponent drops that argument. You should advance a decision calculus with a clear order for how arguments should be interpreted in terms of logical progression. Naturally, theory comes before other arguments.

III. CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

An argument is an argument, and I will evaluate it as such, no matter its origin. I do not have a preference (or distaste) for a particular school of thought or type of argument, so feel free to run critical arguments in front of me. While I will not hold a debater to a higher standard simply because she chooses to run something critical, I do think that such a decision generally makes that debater’s job tougher since most complex argumentation is hard to effectively explain in a six- or seven-minute constructive. Accordingly, if you choose to go this route, make sure the presentation of your arguments makes the relevant issues accessible. I will hold it against you if you are deliberately evasive in CX when asked by your opponent to clarify issues, and I will hold it against you if it seems like you are hiding behind deliberately unclear language throughout the debate.

IV. SPEED

I do not have issues flowing speed or comprehending arguments read at a quick pace, but I detest speed for the sake of speed. I strongly prefer speed for the sake of substance. Please slow down for taglines and author names, and make sure that you are slowing up a bit to explain the logical function of an argument (e.g., the violation component of a theory position). Without that explanation, I reserve the right to ignore it, even if that explanation comes slowly and clearly in the last rebuttal. I prefer not to yell “clear” during a debate round because I think doing so advantages the dreaded blip-spreader.

V. THEORY

I think theory is acceptable, and in cases where a position or strategy is unfair or educationally bankrupt, I think it is a wise tactic to employ. In terms of form, I don’t think it’s necessary to present a theory position structured in the traditional way (i.e., interpretation, violation, standards, decision rule), but I prefer that you do present it that way. If you don’t, I think the onus is on you to make all the necessary components of the argument clear and accessible to your opponent. In terms of content, when you are running theory, I think it’s a waste of your time unless you have an objection so compelling that you can generate solid offense on it. When you are faced with theory run against you, I think the best way to counteract it is to run a counter-interpretation that justifies your position or strategy. If it’s difficult to make offensive arguments in defense of your position or strategy, that’s a good sign that you are doing something theoretically suspect, and I will always prefer offense to defense. In case it isn’t clear, I am firmly in the competing-interpretations camp when it comes to evaluating theory, so I will apply the same offense/defense standards to any theory issue that I would any other argument in the debate. I will not ignore RVIs outright, but I think there are probably better uses of your time.

VI. EVIDENCE

In general, I think evidence is very important. While I don’t think all analytic arguments require evidence, I think almost all empirical arguments do, and I still think most good analytic arguments will be better warranted by experts. You need to have full citations with you for each card, and the cards should exist in their entirety somewhere in your possession (whether it’s in case or in the article stowed in your bag). If the debate comes down to competing extensions, I will prefer evidence to analytics, and I reserve the right to read unread portions of the card to determine evidence quality. I will reward you with speaker points if you are able to effectively press your opponent on evidence in CX and throughout the debate.

VII. EXTENSIONS

Let me address something that seems self-evident but gets mishandled and misunderstood all the time: extensions. I will not treat an extension as a “game-winner” so to speak. I reserve the right to ignore anything I consider blatantly unwarranted and/or unintelligible, and debaters (especially affirmatives in the 1AR) cannot reasonably expect to somehow exclude the entirety of their opponent’s constructive with the extension of a clause or sentence hidden somewhere in the case. Conceivably, I admit that a constructive could be so poor that such a scenario could occur, but it’s very unlikely, and you should realize that. Each debater needs to be answering her opponent’s arguments instead of making extensions and claiming that those extensions exclude huge portions of her opponent’s last speech. That said, I appreciate strategy, and I will reward demonstrated technical proficiency.

On a related note, I tend to think people, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, execute extensions poorly. You need to explain the warrant for your argument, but it’s important for you to explain how the argument you’re extending interacts with other arguments in the debate. I don’t expect you to just reread the argument and count that as your extension. I also tend to think too many judges decide rounds on the basis of counting arrows or finding the most obvious drop. If you extend an argument that takes out or makes other arguments irrelevant, tell me why and realize that you aren't dropping your opponent’s argument if you’re using your extensions to answer it, even if it means you aren't putting a ton of ink right next to what your opponent said in the previous speech. Debate is about argument comparison, so extensions should be more synthesis than repetition.

VIII. CX

I think CX is binding, and I will pay attention to CX as closely as any other speech in the debate. I will flow parts of CX if I sense that an exchange might prove important later in the debate. Even if a debater fails to invoke a reference to something said during CX, I will evaluate arguments in the context of what was said during CX. Needless to say, I think it would be wise for you to use your CX aggressively (though politely) to set up your rebuttals instead of mindlessly going through the motions or simply using the time to prep.

IX. MISCELLANEOUS

I prefer not to disclose speaker points. I will be happy to answer your questions before and after the round. If I vote against you, and you disagree with my decision, I will try my best to help you understand my decision, but I expect the conversation to remain civil in spite of how frank you might be with me in voicing your disagreement. I tend to be direct in explaining how I saw things, so don’t be offended by my candor. I’m impressed you’re here, and my decision isn’t personal.

Be polite but feel free to show a little personality, have fun, and good luck!

My email is neil.conrad@gmail.com