Tomik,+Keegan

Keegan Tomik University of Oklahoma Dartmouth College

I debated for 5 years at OU. I cleared to octos of the NDT my senior year. Run what you are comfortable with in front of me. Below are my old/high school philosophies. Prep ends when the flashdrive is out of the computer. Love me some slow efficient debate. I'd say my old written stuff is relevant. I am working for Dartmouth this year, so I am a lot more familiar with the policy side of the topic than usual for me.

Previous philosophies: Keegan Tomik

University of Oklahoma

NEW: 9 years as a competitor, Five at OU four at Parkway North. 2 NDT quals with decent success. Not a first round, but a bubble team (of clearing not first round bubble) for a few years.

Ethos- For some reason this issue is one of the most important factors in a debate round that does not get talked about at all. Ethos controls debates it sways how I feel and it adjusts my attitudes and how I feel about arguments. Correct cross-x swag and mind games that go over the other teams head in cross-x make dumb arguments into good arguments. I find when I make a wrong decision (see voting against Gabe in a outround) it is often because I dislike a team.How does that happen? You are degrading the tournament you are at because its not "the glenbrooks, saint marks, etc.", you are calling the argument they are making stupid because you don't understand it very well, you think you are much better than them even thought the quality of the warrants is very similar. Clear teams (this for some reason is synonymous with slow in high school) have an ethos edge with me. I think if I can't understand the card I am going to call clear, if I still can't understand I will look annoyed and will be open to the other team punishing you in some way that I haven't resolved yet. I do not think it is worth it to spout of 3 fast analytical arguments that don't really respond and would prefer a paragraph. Extensions also sound best when done in the "Heg stops nuclear war -thats khaz 95- hege means we stop escalation because of X Y Z". Ethos is a Loyola, West Georgia, Mostate KO, OU CJ. Ethos is in a balance with logos to me.

Logos- I think this keeps the ethos in check even thought the Ethos is in a lot of ways center stage. No amount of ethos can overcome a fundamental lack of logos. Logos is a good line by line coverage, a solid warranted answer that may not be carded to a potentially dangerous card. Logos is a competitive counter plan that solves the aff with both a internal net benefit and a disadvantage to the affirmative. Logos is going for framework against a K affirmative and reading case arguments that mean the critique isn't true, and using the critical offense against framework. As such the Logos is the parameters for evaluation often that make ethos irrelevant and allows the above described counterplan to be rejected for cheating. This is because there is no real content to the logos outside of its form. Logos is realizing that Topicality is not just the violation/we meet part, but rather recognizing the competing interpretations portion of the debate should be central and that ground and limits matter most. Similarly reasonability is the Ethos counter point to the logos. Examples of Logos in Debate - Wayne State MT (Gabe), Northwestern (I can think of no squad that embodies Logos and teamwork more than Northwestern), Michigan state LW , Stephen "robo jesus". I am dyslexic grammar is thus part of the Logos that is very very hard for me to grasp.

Pathos- I do not care. Really.

I am a seventh year debater, debating four years for a small school inside of missouri. This is my third year competing at OU in the open division. My 'highlight' so far has been getting to the Octo finals of CEDA nationals on the 08-09 topic. General

I feel largely being open to any particular type of argument and willing to here anything, I understand debate in terms of PvP, PvK, and KvK. Impact turning arguments is my particular style of debate, and to rush head on into conflict, rather than side skirting questions. I enjoy all types of debate, K, performance, policy, I think it is best to run what you are most comfortable with in front of me. I can't imagine people still have to worry about judges that won't vote on cps, or just the arguments made inside of the round. I think the divide in terms of literature is real, reading Fuco, and Lacan is really not the same as cutting politics, as such I structure my philosophy around this clash.

PvP (Policy vs. Policy)

I mean this as types of teams, I don't have strong formulated feelings on a lot of issues. I haven't come to terms with the possibility of zero risk of a disad vs. .00001%. CP theory I have stronger views, I think consult CPs are most likely not legit, as I can't imagine a world where a aff can win devoid of theory. I feel this is also true of the word pic, and possibly pics in general. While at the same time I feel a good pic being a near unbeatable strategy doesn't mean that it should be excluded. But that's the point of a good pic right? Pics are most likely good, consult cps most likely bad. Theory itself I feel is one of the more enjoyable arguments to listen to. Theory that isn't just reading blocks but makes external arguments that factor into evaluation, and frame issues. I'm most concerned about warrants inside of evidence being articulated and good cards. So much of evidence is bad, and I am likely to prefer a well articulated explanation over a page solid of text with random words underlined that kind of make that argument.

PvK Clash of worlds, this is a debate I see a lot. I think framework arguments need to be based inside of T in order to win the impact of <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">exclusion if the aff claims that the logical outcome of framework is that you would imagine the government defending the plan. I think a <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">bad strategy for a policy team debating a K aff is to read 7 off, and ignore case, a good K team will almost always win that scenario. A CP, a disad, framework, and lots of case arguments is the way to go. I think K teams need to use the 1ac more, and put down the random blocks. It is essential to use a critical aff to K framework, similarly policy teams need case arguments to take out this offense in <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">regards to framework.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">KvK <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I like this debate when done well. I've been reading 1 off for the last three years, the vast majority of which was critical high theory. I'm annoyed reading other judges prefs with starting out statements like " I hate the K, But don't worry I'm objective and will still vote for it!" or "You have discuss the framework of the ballot, if not I obviously default to...", while it is true explanation is needed and vital to ever winning a K debate (WARRANTS WARRANTS WARRANTS), I think e<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">very impact claim is a framing argument of sorts.