Hamm,+Austin

Austin Hamm Affiliation: Edmond North High School Debated 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School 2nd year debater for the University of Central Oklahoma

To start with I won't say that I am "Tabula Rasa" but I will say that the overall focus of my paradigm is going to be "do you." I believe debaters do better and are more comfortable when judges are open to the types of debate that the individuals like to engage in. So if that is doing straight up policy then do it, if it is a middle of the road approach do it, if it is far left or "non-trad" then do it. I will evaluate anything you want to do as long as you do it well. As a general note I tend to be more critically inclined and to follow a middle of the road approach. I will do my best to address specific arguments throughout the rest of the paradigm. However, if there are any specific questions you have feel free to email me at hamm.austin@gmail.com. 

Specific Arguments

Topicality: The more specific the definition is the better the debate tends to be. In other words I am not very compelled by generic T arguments. Well done contextualization of your arguments in round, is going to go much further in front of me than generic arguments. If the aff does not have offense they will likely lose the debate. Just clear work on the T debate really helps me evaluate it. Slow down when reading a t shell it makes it easier for me to flow.

Theory: Much of the same from topicality applies to my ideology on theory. Just because you read a block that is longer than your opponent does not equal a win. For me to vote on this comfortably it needs to be fully developed and contextualized impacts. I will generally default that conditionality is good unless it comes down to some contradictory positions. Don't except me to vote on theory because it's dropped, it still needs to be developed. Arguments like multiple perms bad will likely not be a reason for me to reject the team.

Framework: Arguments that are particularly persuasive to me are going to be topical version of the aff and contextualized limits arguments. The same amount of development as mentioned earlier needs to be used in these debates as well. Framework debates need to be kept clear throughout the round for me to evaluate it as best as I can.

Counterplans: I like a good counterplan debate. I really enjoy a CP that is specific to the aff instead of a generic CP. I find myself hard pressed to prefer word PICs or Consult CPs but I do believe they have the same weight as other CPs but should be used in specific instances to have the most impact.

Disadvantage: The more specific the links the better. I do enjoy specific DAs that have interesting scenarios with clear articulation. Being up to date on the issues surrounding your DA scenario will gain you more credibility with me in round. I will consider voting on a no risk of the impact of a DA with sufficiently done impact calculus by the affirmative.

Kritiks: I usually enjoy these debates the most, as long as the debate is well done and the K is explained well. Things I look for from the negative include a well done contextualization of the alt in round. I want to hear how the alt resolves the links and enough of the aff to overcome the permutation. I also like to see specific links to the aff and could possibly be persuaded that a link of omission should not be evaluated. That being said, if that is the link you have go all in on it and work it. I also look for impact debate that is explicit and well done. If the K is filled with jargon and riddled with nebulous knowledge make sure to explain it to me. While I have seen a wide variety of Ks I’m sure there are some I still haven’t seen so act like I do not know anything about it and explain it to me. I am not a huge fan of listening to generic high theory K's. If you have specific links that makes the argument much more compelling to me than "you used the state" links. For the aff, do not forget that you have an affirmative. If you do not know what the K is or what exactly it means sit in the offense you have generated in the aff against Ks. Make perms that make sense and explain it well. A note for impact framing - do not just read ethics first or existential threats first but take it further and do specific work on what your impacts are and why I should prefer them. The specific work of the aff against the K can be very compelling.

K affs: I am fine with all of these and interested to see how they are done. I do think that there needs to be some relationship to the resolution. How that relationship works is really up to the team. Just make sure to have a unique reason why I should prefer your relationship to the resolution. I will evaluate any kind of this aff even if it is a negation or criticism of the resolution. The same goes for "Non-trad" debate. I do not like the naming of it as "non-trad" but I will use it here for reference. I am very interested in this form of debate. The top matter of my philosophy of "do you" is very important here, I am open to whatever method the aff engages. If this takes the form of a narrative reading, poems, music, etc.. do it. A few things that I will look for from the affirmative includes a very clear role of the ballot, a justification for the performance you use, and some clear impact work being done. I think rounds like this can be very educational for everyone in the round and do not think it should just be excluded. So a side note here for the negative. In rounds like this I will be much more persuaded by negative teams that attempt to engage in their opponent’s arguments instead of just defaulting to FW or T. I think that the ultimate purpose of debate is education and I personally believe that even an attempt to engage the "non-trad" aspects of debate can be incredibly educational. Not only do I think that this will increase education but this will probably make for better rounds. Maybe try something new if you aren't used to. However, I will not penalize teams who stick with a clash of civilization debates. It is just something to consider.

Some notes on the round overall - 1. I think that hostile debate rounds are stupid and pointless. There is no reason to get hostile and rude. Everyone has a better time in round when everyone is nice and cordial. Speaker points will be reflexive of that. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. If you are referring to me in round feel free to call me Austin or Hamm, I will respond to either. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">3. Prep time stops when the document is saved and being put onto a flash drive or emailed. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">4. I am fine with speed but you need to slow down on T/theory/FW standards to make sure that I get it all. The most important part for me is clarity, if I feel that you are unclear I will send both verbal and nonverbal signals that you are unclear and after I call clear the third time I will stop flowing. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">5. Have fun and enjoy what you do.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Any other questions feel free to email me and I will try to answer as best as I can!