Elliott,+Darren+chief

= Darren "Chief" Elliott = = Director of Debate KC KS Community College = = Years Coaching/Judging College: 15+ = = Rounds on the HS Topic: 10+ = = = = Administer and run a High School camp on the HS topic every summer. Have worked numerous workshops over the years. = = = = I don’t intervene unless forced to. I will vote on cheap shots, dropped voting issues, and discourse if it is proven to be the decision calculus. Take nothing for granted. I start from the belief that debate is debatable. I am tabula gumbo—see below! Within that framework here are some thoughts: = = = = My Beliefs: I believe we teach the greatest skills of any academic discipline. I believe we are at a critical juncture in our existence. I believe a lot of what we do in this activity is fabulous. I believe a lot of what we do in this activity is dangerous. We preach diversity yet we practice exclusion. We preach free flow of ideas yet we practice censorship. We preach an open minded approach yet we practice close minded appeals. I truly believe the next few years will determine our fate. What role can I play in that? Hopefully a positive one. How can we all do that together? Maybe this forum is the only forum possible to figure that out—think about that as you debate. = = = = Affirmative: Debatable. Do what you do best, have a defense for it if challenged, clash with your opponents. = = = = Negative: Debatable. Do what you do best, have a defense for it if challenged, clash with your opponents. = = = = Counterplans: Can be whatever you want ‘em to be: If challenged on your theory, be prepared to defend it. No bias one way or the other on pics, conditional/dispositional, multiple, etc. = = = = Topicality: Usually a voter though I can be persuaded why it shouldn’t be in a particular debate. (See evidence and My Ballot below) = = = = Disads: Link debate, link debate, link debate. Point out flaws in people’s evidence. Internal links anyone? If you're going just for a disad, probably want to explain why it outweighs the case. = = = = Kritiks: I find myself voting aff a lot when people go for the K if the 2NR has little to no explanation of how the K Alt functions. If you arent explaining how it interacts with/solves for/turns the case, you are probably behind. Same with the permutation debate. Do not overlook it or have shallow coverage here. Likewise for the aff, if you want to win a perm or that the aff outweighs the K, spend time here in the 1ar/2ar. = = = = Cross-ex: Be nice, be purposeful, and be funny if appropriate. = = = = Evidence: It's good. I might read some after the debate but I will not reconstruct a debate for you through the evidence. I will check warrants made vs the evidence called out in the last rebuttals if the point of contention in the evidence makes a difference in my decision. = = = = Ballot: If left to my own framework I will use it to determine "who did the better debating" and that might include who won a procedural or theory argument or who advocated for a superior policy with bigger impacts or who convinced me to adopt their way of seeing the world as a precursor to anything else. Policy Makers should not divorce themselves of questions of ontology or epistemology outright--however I can be convinced those questions in any given debate are a bad means of evaluation and/or have disads to them. Bottom line, think about how you want to write my ballot for me at the end of the debate. = = = = My Likes: Well-timed humor, good evidence comparison, Jack-In-The-Box Tacos. = = My Dislikes: Rudeness, exclusion from debates, prep time thieves, debaters who hover over their opponents as they read, not enough hours in the day at tournaments, no hot water in the hotel room, hypocritical debaters and judges, how I feel after too many Jack-In-The-Box Tacos and the Cardinals! = = = = Have fun. Fell free to ask questions—I reserve the right to clarify my intent. =