Little,+Mark

(updated 27 January, 2018)

Core principles (read the bolded for TL;DR)
**Tech > Truth.** That is an understatement. Debate is a scholarly activity. As such, we shouldn’t, can’t, and don’t establish any truths. We test ideas. We roll them around, hold them up to the light, and then toss them out. Your technical execution of the debate is far more important than the imaginary moral high ground you think your position holds.

**No substantive preferences.** I care far more about in round execution than argument content. Over twenty years, I have voted for and against just about every substantive and procedural argument. Malthus? Yes. Tear down the state? Yes. Gibberish psycho babble? Yes. Legal interp of small word on T? Yes. And so on. Do I like these arguments? Probably not, but who cares?

**Yes, I have some debate experience.** 20+ years of debating and coaching debate at both high school (local and national circuit) and college levels. Over the last four years, I judge an average 60-100 policy debate rounds. Not all equal in quality.

**The flow is central to my decision.** Your credibility (and probably speaks) will take a hit if you say, “They dropped XYZ,” and you are wrong. This happens at least once every tournament. The real implication is that I appreciate exceptionally proficient line-by-line.

**Smart, strategic decisions get rewarded.** What does that mean? Did the Neg make a critical mistake so you can concede an argument and sit down 2 minutes in the 1AR? No problem, if you are right. Have 64 minutes worth of independent case turns against the aff? Run them all. Behind going into the 2AR and 2NR dropped RVI on T? Its yours if you did the work throughout the debate. You do **not** have to do one of these to win or get good speaks. The message is: don’t be afraid to make bold decisions.

Kritikal arguments
Ks are just args. Their role in the round is entirely up to you. Here are a few things you might consider if running a kritikal strat (aff or neg): Is there a link or does the K just indict the status quo?

Are your cards gibberish? Nothing wrong with gibberish except those cards are ripe for in round turns because they intentionally obfuscate their conclusions. The other has free reign to reinterpret the cards.

Do you ignore the line-by-line? I don’t understand why some debaters believe that reading a K gives them permission to ignore arguments. I will vote very quickly on dropped answers to your position, no matter how well spoken you think your overview was.

Role of the ballot / framework are critical in these debates. Make sure I know the purpose of my ballot and that you solve for that. Do I understand the alt? Unfortunately for you, its your job to make sure I get it, not my job to figure it out.

Counterplans
Make sure I hear and flow the plan text. I do not and will not read along with you. Well run counterplans are a delight to watch. Deep on states and federalism? I am happy to hear your version even though this argument has been boring me for 20 years.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Want to run a really specific counterplan with a great solvency advocate? Go for it. May the better cards win.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Disads
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">What is not to love about a disad with excellent cards?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">T, Framework, and other theory arguments
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**T** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have deep fondness for T when done well. It does seem odd when a team reads a card with a creative interp, but then runs standards and T=VI args that are schlock. “T is a voter for fairness and education,” is not an argument. It is a string of eight random words.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Framework** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Winning the role of the ballot or framework arguments resolves many rounds. I am happy to exclude whole positions if they don’t impact the relevant ROB/Framework.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Condo** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Condo is just an argument. Conditional arguments are not the same as dispositional arguments. Subject to your counter interp, condo allows contradictory args; dispo allows kicking args.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Perm severance** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">There seems to be an epidemic of negs arguing “perm = severance / severance bad” when the aff just argues the perm as a test of competition. Unless the aff explicitly argues the perm is part of their advocacy, the neg probably has an uphill battle on severance as a VI, subject, of course, to a counter interp.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Judge kicking** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you want me to kick a position, then you kick. I will not do it for you. That said, I often do a mental exercise asking, “What if I concede every argument (Aff/Neg) makes, does the other team have a path to the ballot?” If the answer is yes, I’m probably voting for the team that could have conceded everything. Not the same as judge kicking in my opinion, but might be a close cousin.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debate mechanics
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Email chain: little.pdx@gmail.com

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Flashing: prep stops when you eject the thumb drive the first time. I reserve the right to restart it if I think you are prepping. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In the event of a dispute, my clock controls speech and prep time.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Flow. Really. I’m not reading along with your opponent’s speech doc, why are you? You might be surprised how easy the round is from my perspective.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Cards matter.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If your idea of a good constructive includes a four minute scripted oratory that fails to respond to the line-by-line with cards (preferably) and analytics, you should probably strike me.