Shackelford,+Daniel

I debated policy debate for my 3 years at Bingham High School in Utah, and now I coach for them.

AFF - I prefer affirmatives to be topical, and generally prefer if they have a plan text that goes through the USfg. I haven't had too much experience with critical affirmatives, so if you would like to critique the resolution or run performance than you should really understand your argument and it explain in terms that are easy to understand. Either way, make the framework for your aff clear and explain how i should vote, whether it be through "the role of the ballot" arguements or impact calculus

Counterplans - I really enjoy the counterplan debate, whether they are generic PICs, or Case specific. Obviously, try to make the CP solve for as much of the affirmative as possible and attach disads as net benefits. I generally prefer only one counterplan in the debate, and as far as theory goes, i have a rather reasonable threshold and will vote if there is clear abuse. I love a great theory debate, especially when there are clear interpretations. While you should focus on ground loss and abuse in the round, also give me a big picture argument and impact your theory argument in the context of debate as a whole.

Disads - I was a real politics hack in high school, and I am rather susceptible to disads in general. A case specific disad will get you a long way in the debate, but that doesn't mean i won't vote for generic disads. Either way, the disad should have a clear and connected scenario with good evidence. I tend to call for evidence in disad debates, but i try to do as little judge intervention as possible

Kritiks - The Kritik isn't my favorite argument, but i do appreciate a good K debate. While i ran a fair amount of K's in high school, I rarely went for them in the 2nr. What's important here is a good framework debate. As far as the K itself goes, the impact debate is crucial for me. Teams usually spend a majoirty of their time on either explaining why the aff links, which i generally buy from the get go. Explain why the aff specifically leads to the impacts and i'll vote neg.

T - Me and my brother loved going for T, and it remains one of my favorite arguments. Good evidence can win you the round here, however i also default to a competeting interpretations framework, so i'll vote for whichever interp is best for debate. Proving abuse and ground loss are also good, but basically, i believe that an aff should be topical just as much as a stock issues judge might. T can be an easy way out for some negatives, but if you want to go for it, you should spend the entirety of the 2nr on T.

Overall I am a pretty straight-up judge. Like most people, i like strong impact calculus, well constructed arguments, good evidence, and smart analytics. I will default to my flow, and if my flow is clear, than that is extra speaks for you. Don't use all of your speech or prep time if you don't have to. I'll try to intervene as little as possible, so make the debate what you want it and have fun.