Okere,Chimene

Experience- 3 yrs policy Debate Lane Tech High School Currently Coaching for Lane

1. Topicality- i'll evaulate this through an offense defense paradigm, competing interpretations is the easiest way for me to do that. Spend a lot of time at the impact level (education, fairness, etc) for me to enjoy this debate, otherwise i'll easily weigh in claims of reasonability. Speaking of that I think reasonability is a useful tool to mitigate the weight of the competing interps debate. I can be persuaded by this argument especially in the context of shady interpretations. This does not mean that i won't vote for interpretations i think are ludicrous, if you do a good job debating it i can vote for it. I tend to have a higher respect for debaters who are good on with T because of the complexity of the argumentation and research that is requires to win on it.

2. Kritiks- I enjoy a good K debate like the next bloak, but use normal people words. No repetitive jargon in the rebuttles would be ideal. Actually no jargon at all would be perfect. I'm not that knowledgeable of all the K literature but i understand the basic ones. Lacan/Zizek, Zizek proper, Nietzsche, Foucault/Agamben, Cuomo, Fenon... i think there's more but i can't recall at this moment. Arguments that stem off of this i can understand. The easiest and most effective way for me to evaulate this is if your read less cards on the negative and explain your better pieces evidence. Ofcourse you can read evidence to answer arguments but i don't want to have to read ten new alternative solvency extensions. Make sure you spend plenty of time at the impact level of each link, considering this is the only thing that matters in this debate. If you win the link debate i think it's almost impossible for me to vote against you.

3. Framework- I don't see how excluding an argument in debate is educational. Congressman and real policymakers don't say we cant fix racism, suffering, or patriarchy so lets not talk about it. I think this is should be your last resort in a round. Considering that i will vote on framework if its framed offensively enough. I've won on framework so don't think i'm a K hack. When this debate occurs you have to specific reasons why their framework is ineffective, unfair, non-educational, i do not want to hear K's are unpredictable and that bad for policy debate, thats just no an argument. For negative teams, i think your framework should just have to justify your action you shouldnt' have to defend all philosophical literature.

4. Non Resolutional advocacies- This debate is always fun because someone is seriously pissed at the end of the round, and no matter what i'll probably be striked by one of the teams. Saying this i'm very lenient on these, i don't see how debate is an educational activity if it has structural biases against certain arguments. However, if you support the idea that debate should be exclusive then sure i'll vote for that argument if it's done well, and offensively. Kritiking debate/resolution as a structure is not a new argument it's been around for awhile. Considering that i think if you have a much more innovative kritik of debate/resolution then i'm more willing to listen to it. Do not think just because i'm black i'll vote for the black aesthetic. NOT TRUE at all if you win with an argument then it's because you did a good job debating. Spend plenty of time justifying your advocacy and how effective it will be on debate. Some personal biases i have is that i'm more of a pragmatic person, revolutionary actions have to be justified or i'll default to the middle ground.

5.Counterplans- PIC's are strategic but your net benefit has to strong enough to defend a perm do cp or else i'll just default to affirmative theoretical reasons why pic's are bad.

6. disads are good. i have a high appreciation for these debates.

7. Theory- I think this is strategic in the right places. Utilizing them as a time skew or a way to reject an argument is useful and i'd prefer this is how most of the debates occur with theory. But you have to put a lot of work on any argument for me to reject a team. I don't think a team should lose if they drop one argument, you have to explain the implication of it on the entire debate. But if you do concede a theory argument then well you've got a lot of work to do, your responses are new and that's probably pretty abusive to the person who has to answer you.

8. Speech stuff- a. clarity is pretty dang important, and more important than speed. If you have some outlandish/crazy speech twitch make sure you start slower so i can get used to this strange action you do. b. Ethics- Don't clip cards, if don't mark them i wont look at them at the end of the round. If you get caught clipping cards i'll laugh at you and LET YOU GUYS DEBATE OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT ON THE ROUND., when i mean debate the other person has to respond an defend themselves. c. Paperless Debating- you need to either have a viewing computer or a flash drive to give your opponents a chance to look at what your reading. the transfer of this does not count against your prep. If you don't have either these, i 'll assume your an unprepared bad debater and that will be represented by your speaker points. Don't think to do this in elims i'm sure you can find a flash drive in a break round so the other team can be prepared too. d. Speaker points- 26.5 27.5-average 28-28.5 above average 29-29.5 - OK 30- Descent-