Turner,+Wyllene

Wyllene Turner Regional Coordinator for the Bay Area Urban Debate League

My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. SLOW DOWN and explain your arg. NO Spreading! In most debates, fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics:

Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart. I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and prefer a kritik with a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Heidegger, Zizek, Nietzsche, or any super generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I prefer the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. By default, I am a policy maker. Over the last year, I have come to find more value in performance debate and am interested in it. I still need a clear explanation of what the affirmative is defending.