Cameron+Ward

I believe that debate is an activity where the boundaries are defined by the participants. This means that I am open to hear whatever kind of debate you want. If you wish to innovate new radical approaches to debate I am open to hear them, and if you wish to have a more traditional kind of debate I am open to hear those as well. It is important for me that you situate my space in the debate. This means that if you want me to decide the debate by comparing the size of your impacts you should say it, and if you wish for me to take a different approach you should say it too. Despite my attempt to allow the debaters to control the direction of the debate I am not a blank slate, I do have some debate dogmas. I will try hard to make them obvious here, and if there is any confusion feel free to ask me.

You only get credit for arguments that I have on my flow. If you are difficult to understand, and I miss something, that is YOUR fault. I won’t feel bad at all about telling you that I don’t have that argument.

I prefer debates where there are a smaller number of well developed arguments as opposed to debates with 11 off. This does not mean read slow, it just means develop your arguments, and make the block small and deep, In general the team with the better explained, better developed arguments will win the debate.

While I encourage debaters to find new, innovative ways to affirm the topic, this is not carte blanch to say anything you want. The topic is important, and as intellectuals and activists we have an obligation to find something related to it to affirm. This does not mean that I am excited about hearing T debates. In general I lean aff on T and will let the Aff do their thing as long as it is germane to the topic, and debatable. In sum, feel free to read your crazy Aff, but be prepared to explain why it is relevant to the topic, and why it is a debatable issue. I believe that voting Aff is an affirmation of the resolution. You can affirm the resolution in any way that you choose (as long as you can defend it), but in the end of the day, voting Aff means that I am saying yes to some version/interpretation of the resolution. While I am open to all sorts of Affs, the one kind of Aff that will make me lean Neg on framework questions is an Aff that says that the resolution is bad, or totally eschews any semblance of a connection to the resolution. This doesn’t mean that you have to fiat anything, or pretend to be the federal government, but if you don’t want to defend those things you should explain what you think the resolution means, and defend it.

Be prepared to debate the framework. I generally don’t like debates that are entirely about this, but it can be an important element of a debate. It’s alright to kritik someone’s approach to the debate, but be prepared to describe what your alternative approach is and why it is better.

I love a healthy dose of competition as much as the next person, but don’t be a jerk. Humor is good and will be rewarded, emotion is good too, just don’t let the debate turn into a pissing contest over something not at all important to the debate.

Slow down on theory. If I miss something because you are blazing through a block I won’t feel bad at all about telling you I didn’t get after the debate.

Don’t just assume that I have read the critical theory that you are debating. I used to read the k all the time but I don’t spend all day reading it now. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!!!! This applies to kritiks as well as other policy based arguments. I won’t vote on an argument that you win but I don’t understand.

Have fun, Respect each other, and good luck!