Cull,Killian

Experience as of 2010-2011 4 Years of High School Debate KU Student, Playa

Big Picture- I like debate. Dropped arguments, even if not true or sensible, are detrimental. Please be CLEAR and AUDIBLE when you transition between flows, arguments, tags, cites, etc. I cannot emphasize this enough. Make sure I know where you are at, nothing annoys me more than trying to figure out where I should put arguments on my flow.

I enjoy smart hearing smart arguments. If an argument is up in the air, or grey, I often decide based upon which team does the better job comparing arguments. With that said, I think comparative analysis is REALLY REALLY Important. Not only does it provide clash, but it prevents me fro intervening, and makes good debates.

Paperless Debate-

for the most part, it's kind of tight. However, I get really annoyed when it takes a while for speeches to get started, like taking an unheard of amount of time to jump speeches. That really grinds my gears. But, a lot of people are new to it, so I'll be chill about. Just keep in mind, it can be frustrating.

Also, if you decide to pursue paperless, you MUST HAVE a viewing computer for the opposing team. Seriously, it's not cool if you don't. I've had bad experiences trying to deal with paperless teams who are noobs about this.

T- Being a 2N, I almost always default to competing interpretations. However, if you are going to defend something that is inherently not so T, then here is some advice to convince me: -elaborate why your offense turns their ground claims -make your advocacy very clear and understandable

Don't get me wrong, If you provide a compelling reason why reasonability is good, T= exclusionary, discourse first, etc., go for it!

When T is not a time suck in the round: -Make sure your interpretation is very clear, and is not nebulous after the round -Provide a caselist -if possible, a topical version of the aff -elaborate what affs would be justified, and what args each side get

It's like any other argument in debate, impact it out. I don't see teams do this as often, or execute it, as well anymore. Explain why limits should come first, why topic specific education is best, why their form of education is bad, etc.

Case Debates- where did they go? It seems like negs don't press this as often as they should. I really like to see good case debate. Not only do I find them interesting, but it makes you sound smarter, and you have a better chance of getting good speaks from me. It's a great place to slow down affs, easy to kick out of, and a great place to make a number of smart analytics. Plus, seeing a team get kicked around with their own aff amuses me.

K- I've read a Zizek book before, by debate norms, I think that qualifies me as a nerd. But seriously, I think K's are a useful part of debate and are needed in the community. We probably should not be saying offensive things in the round. And every now and then, even in the real world, someone has to say "this shit is fucked up." I think its safe to say I have a general understanding of most mainstream criticisms. However, if your going to go on some tangent about some Deluze & Guattari K, metaphysical bullshit, something Jacques Derrida said, or something really specific, it would help if you slowed down and make things clear (this can be best done on the link level). With that said here are some tips to help convince me to vote on a K -have very specific links (the more specific the better) -explain why your impacts outweigh -how the alt solves everything (even if its not true)

CP- in the spectrum of arguments, I think counterplans are one of the most strategic arguments the neg gets. I feel like a lot debates are won with "CP solves your aff, and their is a risk of a link to politics." I don't have a problem with this. If the substance of your 2NR is that, you are probably a decent person.

I really dig case specific pics. In my eyes, they foster the best kind of research, and often exclude/replace a mechanism or action the plan does.

Word Pics- these almost always blow. Honestly, I think they encourage teams to be block dependent, avoid topic specific clash, and lead to a stale education. Not fun to vote on.

DA- If there is a risk of a link, the neg is good to go. Turns case arguments are really important to, and I don't see many teams utilize them as often as I would like. Impact it out.

Theory- Condo is probably good, the alternative to conditionality is probably worse. Most CPs in my mind should be conditional. Most theory args are a reason to reject the argument, in most cases. If theory is going to be a voting issue, I like to see in round analysis like what they did to us, args we lost, etc.

Now a days, I think the Neg gets a way with too many abusive CPs. Please make a theoretical objection to them. Seriously, the conditions CP?

Aff- always always "reject the argument not the team"

Framework- I believe that debate is an academic forum where we can exchange and discuss ideas. I'm not that persuaded by generic interps like, the neg must defend a policy option. The Neg should probably get a K. But, I don't want that to discourage teams from running framework. If you want to make the round about ethics, ontology, some metaphysical shenanigans, I'm game.

Reading good ev on either side will boost your credibility with me.

Moreover- have fun dont be douchy- play nice- say please and thank you