Yorko,+Austen

I debated for 4 years at Wooster High School in Ohio. I'm now a sophomore debater at Trinity University. This page consists of jumbled up, random thoughts for how I like to see debate - you can always ask specifics if this doesn't make it clear.

Debate is about students being able to explore all different kinds of topics. I'm not here to tell you what to debate. Do what YOU want to do and I'll listen!

-Flashing doesn't count as prep, but if you are taking an absurd amount of time and/or I see you typing, speaker points will most likely suffer. -I'm not coaching or judging regularly on this topic, so I'm not down with most of the topic lingo you're probably using during rounds. Just define and be clear with these kinds of things when you see fit. -Be nice, be funny, by assertive - do what you want, be how you are, but if you're being overly aggressive and mean then you just end up hurting your speaks. Along with this, no offensive rhetoric and/or actions that makes this space unsafe for everyone involved.
 * Quick Notes**:


 * Topicality**: this is probably the area that I am least familiar with. I probably default reasonability, but there is always a debate to be had. If you are going to go for T in the 2NR, I would recommend that (1) your definition ev is spot on, (2) you are doing good impacting for both this debate round and/or future debate rounds, and (3) spend most [if not all] of your time in the rebuttal on the issue. In short: if you're reading T, make it specific and strong in relation with the aff and do strong standard comparison.


 * Kritiks**: this is the area I am most familiar with. I was a kritik debater in high school and it's mainly what I do now in college. This doesn't mean I'm going to check out for a team just because they are great at spreading buzzwords and can pronounce 'Deleuze' correctly. Tell me your thesis, give me impact framing on why things like structural oppression outweigh a global nuclear war, and spend most of your time explaining the alternative and how it can (1) resolve the links to the affirmative and (2) what my role as a judge voting for this alternative is. I think most kritik debates are heavily lacking in the alt/solvency explanation, and that gets teams into hot water when the 2AR can stand up and explain why some structure of government can avoid their scenarios. This means heavy analysis on why the alt functions first, more importantly, and is accessible to the people in the room is very important and how that importance of the alt framing compares to aff solvency.


 * CPs/DAs**: I love a good CP/DA debate, especially when it's put in good relation to the aff. Nothing excites me more than a plan specific PIC and a DA - it can make for a great debate that reveals a lot about the topic literature and the way that the resolution's mechanisms function. As you can probably tell, this means that I'm not necessarilly a big fan of generic topic DAs. I will vote for them, but you have to make sure you're not behind on the link level. Your CP probably does not solve 100 percent of the case and the aff probably doesn't have a 100 percent solvency deficit - explain which internal links are most important and why the CP solves those best - why does the net benefit outweigh the remaining risk of a solvency def?

**Theory**: most of the things here are debatable. I think condo is fine, and I like cheating CPs - just make sure that you can justify them. And if you're aff against dirty, little cheaters you should be doing good lbl on their standards and not just reading pre-made blocks from 6 years ago.