Curran,+Geoffrey

The ABSOLUTE WORST THING you can do in a VLD debate in front of me is to make it boring. There is a lot to be said for the stoic nature of the debate, but spice it up with some clever puns or have a personality. That said, don't let your creativity interfere with the round. Excessively ruinous humor can lead to an abusive round, keep it clean and give me a chuckle every now and then.

Clash is the PARAMOUNT voting issue in a debate. Debate is not two people standing up and presenting wildly different viewpoints on the topic and then staring at the judge to make a decision when they haven't relevantly, intelligently, and respectfully discussed why their view opposes and is superior to the other side. Aff frames the round, therefore Neg it is your obligation to start the clash immediately in the 1NC. If you don't, it is very difficult to recover. Aff framework, therefore, has to make sense, and if it does, the round ought to be debated within the parameters of the aff framework for the resolution. The neg must clash to win. If the neg rejects the framework, standards, value, criterion, or definitions brought up by the aff they will need a highly warranted argument as to why I ought to reject aff framework. Theory loses to real world harm/example/context; period. Fairness may be a voting issue if the opposing team properly identifies the unfair position and shows why it is unfair.

Neg MUST CLASH. Do not stand up in your 1NC and spend 99% of your time presenting an off-framework canned counter-case after saying: "Aff's framework isn't topical." You better do a darn good job of explaining the heck out of that first statement. If you are going to use philosophical arguments on the NEG, or AFF for that matter, make sure you understand what you are arguing. I have a B.A. in English and an M.A. in Composition, I have a wide context with philosophy, so be forewarned.

When you tell me what ought to win the day, round, and my heart - make sure to explain WHY. Don't just say "Whoever has the better value should win." Explain what constitutes better and in what case I should or should not vote for a side. With that, DON'T GET BOGGED DOWN IN A DEFINITION DEBATE. Unless the opposition is running a wildly abusive definition, chalk up the differences to a wash and move on. Don't let the opposition define you into a loss, though. Address specific definition concerns then move on. The debate could be a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own. Some resolutions are written as truth statements in which the aff has a burden of upholding the truth of the statement, and the neg wins by proving the statement untrue, or by attacking the aff reasons for thinking the statement true. In such a situation the V V/C format is unnecessary.

I don't want to sit in a round where I am being abused. I will flow, in my own modified way, and if I miss your contentions or subpoints because you choose to spread, that is on you. You have the burden of making it CRYSTAL CLEAR to the judge(s) what you are arguing and why you should win. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless I don't know what you said. If I miss an argument, card, link, or warrant because I couldn't understand it that is your fault, not mine. In my own debating in the mid-90's I won more rounds with a contrasting medium-paced and clear/concise approach.

Cross-ex is not the time to work out your passive-aggressive issues. Be concise, be respectful, and be aggressive to the points on the flow. Save your scrunched up faces and wild arm flailing for the dances.

CLEARLY and CONCISELY tell me why you win the round. I make my decision based on the big-picture first. Did the Aff debater uphold the resolution? Then I weigh arguments and impacts if there is not a clear win on the standard.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Intelligent people disagree intelligently - as a head coach I have zero tolerance for that sort of stuff.