Dallas,+Gabriel

I debated for 2.5 years at Evanston Township High School on the national circuit; I was coached by Dan Jennis aka Gemus aka Heem. I'm at Brown, class of 2016, studying math and computer science. I was aight at debating; I was a 4-2, out before doubles at a big tournament type of debater. I made this page really early because I want to have it to remind myself about how I think debate works because I'll probably forget sometime sorta soon.

SHORT VERSION

Basically, I like interesting, unique positions, whether they be detailed plans or obscure philosophy (even feel free to write a case with your own made-up philosophy), and well-warranted arguments. I have been told by teammates and coaches before that my threshold for what is a warrant is a bit high, and I will not vote on claims without a solid attempt at a warrant, even if your opponent drops said claims. I can deal with speed; if you're too fast, i'll say "slow;" if you're unclear, i'll say "clear." However, if you disregard me enough, I'll just put my pen down. Your speaker points get a boost if you run interesting positions instead of stock ones, if you're funny, if you act sassy towards a douchey opponent, and most importantly, if you debate well. I am a proud member of Bitch Mob Task Force (google it): If you card Lil B the BasedGod in any meaningful fashion, at least a 29; If your case centers on Based or the ideas of Lil B, 30 (unless you violate the stuff I mention in the below section). Speaker points decrease if you're annoying, don't do well, or do some shit I don't like. Autoloss if you insult The BasedGod.

SHIT I DON'T LIKE

Petty or excessive theory, that's that shit I don't like. I see theory as a last resort or as a way to keep things generally fair. I don't like negs who run dumb, unreasonable 1 minute theory shells against completely fair affs just for strategic advantage. I don't like affs with 7 paragraph theory shells limiting the neg to almost no ground. I don't like flowing theory blip storm debates, and I'm bad at it. However, if theory is necessary/very reasonable, go for it.

Getting science or math wrong, that's that shit I don't like. For those who think it's sweet to use fringe theories about the universe/quantum mechanics or for those who only are familiar with this stuff from debate, look up the Copenhagen Interpretation. Don't blatantly scew up/mess with scientific facts in front of me. Don't get math wrong either. I have heard of really dumb arguments based in faulty mathematical premises or faulty understanding of mathematics; don't run those in front of me. However, if you think of an argument that applies correct mathematics correctly, use it, and I will reward you heavily with speaker points.

Being evasive in CX, that's that shit I don't like. If your opponent finds a huge flaw in your case, I understand you refusing to directly answer some pointed questions, fine. However, if you take your sweet time to answer basic questions about ability for your opponent to link in, turn ground, links in your case, what your case says, how it can be extended, implications of certain arguments, etc., or if you refuse to answer those questions (excessive dodging of question = refusal), I will dock you considerably.

HOW I THINK ABOUT DIFFERENT DEBATE THINGS

Plans/DA's/CounterPlans: If you like to debate like a policy debater, go ahead. I often think that this type of stuff is really interesting. However, I don't think Plans Bad theory is illegitimate, though I don't necessarily think plans are unfair.

Kritiks: They are often very interesting, and I like them, though I find many really dumb, unwarranted, and stretching for a link. Also, link the impacts of the K into something. Don't read a K and expect me to think the impacts matter at all if you don't even bother to link them into a framework of some sort. I say that because Ks are often too long to include your own framework (though I wouldn't mind if you did), so I feel that people often run Ks as huge floating impacts. Either include your own framework, or link into your opponent's.

Theory: First, see the above section. I don't think people always need counterinterpretations. If you can show why your opponent's theory args are dumb, I won't vote on their theory. I think, "some risk of offense" doesn't justify me voting for someone, so if you can more easily just destroy an opponent's logic in their theory shell and think it's a better use of your time to move on to other things rather than read a whole new counterinterp, go ahead. Also, mixing a counterinterp with attacking their theory is great in my opinion. What I mean by this is, for example, instead of reading your shell, then attacking theirs while then trying to link your stuff and weigh it (which I think is confusing), you can be all like, "go to their standard of X. Their argument x1 is false because y1, their argument x2 is false because y2. Also, m3 (this is an argument about why your interp is more fair), and even if x1 and x2 are true, m1 would outweigh because y3)." I think it's clearer and makes more sense that way. I consider RVIs anything that asks me to vote on you because you are being fair. I am very open to RVIs for aff debaters, and pretty open to RVIs for neg debaters. I heard meta-theory might become popular this year; I am open to it. Fun is a voter. Bonus speaks for using fun as a voter in your theory shells.

Philosophy: I ran philosophy-heavy stuff usually, partly because I liked it a lot and partly because I was lazy and usually used my teammate Erik Baker's cases. I like philosophy-heavy debates a lot.

Performance voters/Other pre-fiat focused cases about the nature of debate or debate community: Well, I prefer you don't run them because I usually think they are pointless, never help anything, and are sometimes even annoying. I will probably be biased against your args when you run them in front of me. That being said, this probably won't dissuade you from running them, so, good luck, I guess.

Narratives/Film: Go for it, if you'd like. I feel like it'll just turn into a big theory debate, though. However, it'll probably be a more interesting theory debate than usual.