Greenwalt,+Dustin

Dustin Greenwalt Baylor Uniersity

Experience: First year out. Expended my eligibility at Wayne State University.

General Stuff: I find well warranted and evidenced arguments to be the most persuasive. This is not to say that you need evidence to make a winning argument,sometimes a well developed warrant or example is enough, however you should be aware that the amount of time and energy you spend on an argument (including the time you take to read evidence if needed) has a direct correlation with the credibility I will give that argument.

Also, keep in mind that debate is still at its heart a communication activity- as such, the propensity for speed should not overtake your ability to clearly enunciate your words. At some point the extra card or two that you read while being unclear probably isn't worth the hit to your speaker points.

Offense/Defense seems inevitable in a lot of situations. While strict adherence to this methodology seems improper given that many debates are do not fall under "a lot of situations" as such, if you want me to vote on defense you should explain why it completely decimates any risk of the DA.

Finally, I flow straight down, so attempt to keep things in order- if you need to move the permutation or other large debate to the bottom or elsewhere, then do it. Otherwise, you can signpost by saying phrases like "the link debate" and everything'll be good.

Specific Arguments: Topicality/Spec.- Topicality is probably a voting issue- if you want to change this then you have to clearly outline offensive reasons why this is not so. Specification arguments are usually inane however they do serve a strategic purpose from time to time, especially if you ask for it in cross-x and they don't specify.

Counter plans/Disads: are good, especially when used in strategic combinations. I think affirmatives shouldn't allow the negative to run time-frame counter-plans or other abusive strategies however, if you are negative and think you can defend it, then go for it.

Critiques- I find criticisms to be an effective strategy in negating the affirmative. In order to do so I think the negative should focus on articulating links to the plan or explaining why the plan doesn't matter and some other methodological or representational question is more important. Often, alternatives claim to have some form of action which is easily permeable by the affirmative, I am skeptical of the ability of alternatives to solve the Affirmative and as such these sorts of alternatives just produce competition issues for the negative.

Critical Affirmatives/performance: I find that teams often fail to explain why their alternative framework is desirable, especially in the context of normal "debate speak." You need to effectively explain how your proposed framework clashes with the negative and how it produces a better activity/changes the standards by which we judge what we consider a "better activity." Otherwise, explain why the affirmative subsumes/outweighs your opponents arguments.