Hills,+James

James D. Hills

Paradigm: I am currently a JV debater at Illinois College. I began with traditional policy debate, although recently I have been getting more critical, and these are the types of debates I prefer. Doing a performance debate and affirming an advocacy instead of a plan is fine, as long as you make it relate to the resolution. However, I am not opposed to traditional policy debate with DA’s and T violations. You do you. Above all else, debate well and have fun.

__ DA’s __ - These are pretty straight forward. I like to see specific links as oppose to something like “any type of energy reform leads to economic collapse.” Have clear links and impacts. Explain how the impacts of the disadvantage outweighs the case and you should be just fine. Politics DA’s are just fine as long as you explain them well.
 * On specific arguments **

__ CP’s __ – Honestly, I am not the biggest fan of CP’s. That does not mean I won’t vote for them. If you don’t have net benefits to your counterplan, you’re in trouble.

__ T __ – Topicality is something I am very loose with. I do not believe debaters should be confined 100% to the language of the resolution. If you run T, you’re going to have to clearly explain to me why your education is being threatened in this round and what precedent it will set.

__ Kritiks __ - These are what I like to see the most in a debate round. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for you just because you run one. I am not, by any means, a kritik hack. The biggest issue debaters have with K’s is providing a clear and concise alternative. I would prefer to see something other than “reject the aff” for the alternative. However, I’ll accept anything if you can argue it well enough. I have a basic understanding of Marxism, Anti-blackness, Bio-power, and Queer theory. It would behoove you to play it safe and assume I don’t know your literature, however. As a Marxist, I do enjoy Cap K’s. Once again, don’t assume I’ll vote for it just because. You have to put in the work to get my ballot.

__ Theory/Framework __ – If you’re going to run theory and/or framework, you should probably slow down so I can flow it properly. It is totally possible to win conditionality bad if you extend it well enough and the opposing team doesn’t touch it. Same with framework. If you have framework that says I should vote for the team that makes me laugh the most, and the opposing team doesn’t touch it, you’ll have my ballot. Tell me how I should evaluate and judge the round and I’ll do it.

Speed is fine, but do it for a reason. Speed is used to put in more arguments, not to look cool. Clarity is more important than anything.
 * Other things**

Sass is fine, being a jerk is not. Respect your opponent.

You can expect extra speaker points if you turn an argument and say "Turn! Joke’s on them!”

Stealing prep time is not ok. It is extremely frustrating when this happens in college debate, and I will treat it as a voter issue if it gets out of hand.

Using racist, sexist, ableist, or any other bigoted language will drain your speaks at best and cost you the ballot at worst. If I hear you use the word "retarded" you will lose and your speaker points will be in a world of hurt. On the flip side, I really don't care if you curse. Back when I was a novice debater, my partner and I would sometimes get speaker points deducted for using foul language. I think that's silly. As long as there's no name calling (or bigoted language like I explained earlier), I'm fine with however you decide to get your point across. If you're doing policy debate, you're mature enough to say "ass".

Be funny. Make me laugh. Have fun and argue passionately. If you’re reading this, it’s probably too early to be boring.