Folio,+Ryan

This is my third year on the collegiate policy debate circuit. I prefer fast, technical policy debate. Here is a guide for debating in front of me:

Topicality: You should be topical, and I will not hesitate to vote on topicality. I default to reasonability in absence of good clash. On the neg, you should talk about how the affirmative plan has caused abuse in round as well as what my aff ballot would justify for future plan-writing. A very convincing way of doing this is to make up ridiculous cases that the affirmative’s conception of the topic will justify.

Framework: I defer to the framework that the aff must fiat a plan enacted by the USFG. If there is a good framework debate happening with lots of clash, I won’t hesitate to move away from this.

Performance debate: I’m open to seeing it, but keep in mind that you have a unique burden to show why your performance is key. Don’t get up in the 1AC to rap and bob your head to music and assume that I know how this fits into the debate.

Plans: Read one that’s topical, and be prepared to defend it. This goes for Kritik debaters as well- fine to have an advocacy statement, but it better relate to the topic or else you’re facing an uphill battle with me as your judge.

Counterplans: I love to hear them. Explain clearly why the counterplan is competitive, its net benefit, and how it solves for the affirmative. Aff should usually spend a lot of time on the perm debate if it’s applicable. Conditionality is okay in front of me, but if it goes challenged by the affirmative I won’t be a difficult sell for them. Affirmative should do a good job of showing in round abuse of conditionality as well as potential abuse, and should know how the arguments interact with one another (i.e. do the multiple conditional arguments contradict and why that’s a bad thing, etc.)

Disads/Politics: I like to hear politics disads in particular. Good evidence is important, especially on the link level. If you’re on the affirmative I want to see offense on disads. A good link turn or impact turn can be a game changer.

Kritik: Ks are okay in front of me, but I have high standards for them. You must be clear about what your postmodernists are waxing poetic about. Most of them are not talking about debate, so tell me how they apply. You still have the burden of proving why the plan is a bad idea. If the jury is still out on what your alt is by the end of the debate, you lose. The opposing team should put good framework arguments on the table as well as challenging the K substantively.

Theory: I’m on the conservative side of things when it comes to debate. The only voting issues on theory are conditionality and topicality. Neither are reverse voting issues. That said, I am still the tabula rasa for the round. I’ll vote for the side that does the better debating.

The following things will hurt your speaker points, which start at 28 and move from there: 1.) Incomprehensibility- I will say “clear” if you are unclear. Your evidence may be great, but your job as a debater is to communicate it to me in an effective manner. I suggest that you enunciate tags and author names very deliberately, and speed up if you wish through the text of the card. This is especially important because I am unfamiliar with the space topic. 2.) Abusing paperless debate- Computers are excellent tools for debate, but have also unfortunately opened new vistas for stealing prep time and screwing over your opponents. If you are a paperless team, here are a few of your responsibilities: a. Do not type or click while off the clock. b. Do not end prep before you are absolutely ready to jump files to the other team. c. Provide the other team with a means to see your cards. That may require giving them a viewing computer, or jumping your evidence to them on a flash drive. If your opponents do not have a computer of their own and you do not have a viewing computer, you should offer one of your computers for their use. It is not their responsibility to have a flash drive for you to use. 3.) Being too scared to make strategic decisions- the debate should be smaller in the rebuttals than it was in the constructive, generally speaking. Self-awareness is an important skill. Know what you’re winning and go all in. 4.) The phrase “Extend my cards from the 1AC”- give me specific author names and then elaborate. 5.) Overtagging you evidence, or poor evidence- I will be calling for lots of cards since I am new to the topic. Like the other team, I can see through nonsense.

The following things will help your speaker points: 1.) Humor- Making fun of your opponent’s stances or arguments sometimes goes a long way to showing why they’re bad ideas. The place to do this best is… 2.) CrossEx- Use this time strategically. I consider cross-ex answers to be binding, and I will be paying attention. Trap your opponents and set up new arguments. 3.) Clash- if you explain the warrants of your opponent’s cards better than they do, you’re on the right track. 4.) Good rebuttals- The rebuttals are where you make your money with me as your judge. Make your extensions and then tell me how to view the round, and what my ballot does. Do clear impact calculus on magnitude, timeframe, and probability. 5.) Playing Pearl Jam before the round will court my favor but in no way affect the outcome of the round.