TDooley
11-18-10, 01:44 PM
Background: Debated policy in highschool and debated for Washburn in college. I have a pretty solid grasp on parli and the unique benefits/disadvantages of debating in parli like dealing with not having back end rebuttals. Yes, I too agree with everyone else that the LoR lacks relative importance, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to flow it or pay attention I will just look like I am spacing off, don’t let it affect you.
I am open to any strategy in debate. Whether you want to have a performance, straight up, fact, value, critical or whatever that’s fine with me. I encourage people to exploit trick plays that can be utilized only in parli, quite frankly I don’t think innovation and new arguments happen enough in this community. However, be prepared to defend all aspects of those representations as well. If you say something offensive multiple times in the MO and the PMR runs a new sheet out of their speech indicting that offense I will tend to be more lenient to the gov than protecting the opp in that situation and vice versa.
**This is a really shallow paradigm, if you have questions at all please ask. **
**I will vote directly from the flow. Sometimes that privildges fast/tech debate which is what I love
but I have also found myself recently evaluating slower arguments that are kill shots than 5 almost kill shots.
Topicality/Spec: I think in most instances that the affirmative should defend a topical version of the resolution. That means if you run irony, run topicaly irony. Narratives, topical narratives. This protects dissolving any ground the aff thinks they have lost. Also to shore up the base, I kind of want to get out of these debates where all I see is people complaining that T should be question of reciprocity. No. It’s a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue, time trade-off is usually a fault of the debater and not the argument. If for some reason there is an external impact to the argument (i.e K, linguistic impacts, pure abuse) those arguments will honestly be evaluated but in all honesty you’re either going for T or you aren’t. If you think you’re going for T and spend less than 6-8 min on it in the MO the likelihood of me voting on it is slim. Competing Interpretations > Reasonability it’s the only way to evaluate the standards debate. Limits is most compelling to me in this world as well and is what I will default to when not given a specific mechanism. That isn’t to say other arguments are not as persuasive or more persuasive than the limits debate, but it’s definitely what I’m looking at.
Specs- Yes run them, I ran spec arguments ALL of the time. I’m talking every round. That also means I know when it’s a time suck or something you’re actually going for. If you want to bait them into giving you spec arguments go ahead, I think specing to the res is a pretty devastating Ospec argument and, when executed properly, can win you a round all of the time.
*I love T debates. I love good T debates, the amount of good to bad is usually a ratio of 1:500 so if you’re going to run it, make it legit.
Disadvantages/CPs: Run them. I am fine with them, but also be leary of horrible link/internal stories. Impact calc has to be present in the LOR/PMR. If not, this will likely be a quick loss because I am not going to do work for you. Impact turns, link turns, internal link turns, all of them are fine. I do still agree with the school of thought that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I am fine with every CP there is. Just defend the theory behind it. If you run a delay CP you should expect and already know the obvious theoretical objections to that. If status isn’t asked, I assume all arguments are conditional.
Kritiks: Probably one of the most important aspect of the debate arsenal when done correctly. I am pretty well kept up on most of the PoMo authors you want to read, however I am no where near a philosophy major or a linguistic theorist so you still need to do some explanation. I think I am more persuaded by case/da/cp arguments, BUT if you think you are a K team and that’s what you’re good at then run it. I prefer more specific criticisms than just a general cap bad state bad K so if you have something you want to try new on a judge I am probably the one to do it in front of. Same thing applies to kritikal affs. Often if you can beat the neg to some of their best ground you probably should. Remember, you can’t out left the left though.
Theory: I have no clue why people think providing an interpretation for some of this. People are reading definitions and interpretations for literally everything. You interpretation of PICS bad is that they are bad. The opposite? PICS good. If you get into limiting questions, that is obviously resolved by the limits debate, which is just a standard to prefer PICS over not preferring PICS. It’s really that simple.
I will vote on Theory pretty regularly. However, in the question of a CP, for example, you need to defend a reason why it’s a reason to vote and not just a reason to reject the argument.
I am open to any strategy in debate. Whether you want to have a performance, straight up, fact, value, critical or whatever that’s fine with me. I encourage people to exploit trick plays that can be utilized only in parli, quite frankly I don’t think innovation and new arguments happen enough in this community. However, be prepared to defend all aspects of those representations as well. If you say something offensive multiple times in the MO and the PMR runs a new sheet out of their speech indicting that offense I will tend to be more lenient to the gov than protecting the opp in that situation and vice versa.
**This is a really shallow paradigm, if you have questions at all please ask. **
**I will vote directly from the flow. Sometimes that privildges fast/tech debate which is what I love
but I have also found myself recently evaluating slower arguments that are kill shots than 5 almost kill shots.
Topicality/Spec: I think in most instances that the affirmative should defend a topical version of the resolution. That means if you run irony, run topicaly irony. Narratives, topical narratives. This protects dissolving any ground the aff thinks they have lost. Also to shore up the base, I kind of want to get out of these debates where all I see is people complaining that T should be question of reciprocity. No. It’s a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue, time trade-off is usually a fault of the debater and not the argument. If for some reason there is an external impact to the argument (i.e K, linguistic impacts, pure abuse) those arguments will honestly be evaluated but in all honesty you’re either going for T or you aren’t. If you think you’re going for T and spend less than 6-8 min on it in the MO the likelihood of me voting on it is slim. Competing Interpretations > Reasonability it’s the only way to evaluate the standards debate. Limits is most compelling to me in this world as well and is what I will default to when not given a specific mechanism. That isn’t to say other arguments are not as persuasive or more persuasive than the limits debate, but it’s definitely what I’m looking at.
Specs- Yes run them, I ran spec arguments ALL of the time. I’m talking every round. That also means I know when it’s a time suck or something you’re actually going for. If you want to bait them into giving you spec arguments go ahead, I think specing to the res is a pretty devastating Ospec argument and, when executed properly, can win you a round all of the time.
*I love T debates. I love good T debates, the amount of good to bad is usually a ratio of 1:500 so if you’re going to run it, make it legit.
Disadvantages/CPs: Run them. I am fine with them, but also be leary of horrible link/internal stories. Impact calc has to be present in the LOR/PMR. If not, this will likely be a quick loss because I am not going to do work for you. Impact turns, link turns, internal link turns, all of them are fine. I do still agree with the school of thought that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I am fine with every CP there is. Just defend the theory behind it. If you run a delay CP you should expect and already know the obvious theoretical objections to that. If status isn’t asked, I assume all arguments are conditional.
Kritiks: Probably one of the most important aspect of the debate arsenal when done correctly. I am pretty well kept up on most of the PoMo authors you want to read, however I am no where near a philosophy major or a linguistic theorist so you still need to do some explanation. I think I am more persuaded by case/da/cp arguments, BUT if you think you are a K team and that’s what you’re good at then run it. I prefer more specific criticisms than just a general cap bad state bad K so if you have something you want to try new on a judge I am probably the one to do it in front of. Same thing applies to kritikal affs. Often if you can beat the neg to some of their best ground you probably should. Remember, you can’t out left the left though.
Theory: I have no clue why people think providing an interpretation for some of this. People are reading definitions and interpretations for literally everything. You interpretation of PICS bad is that they are bad. The opposite? PICS good. If you get into limiting questions, that is obviously resolved by the limits debate, which is just a standard to prefer PICS over not preferring PICS. It’s really that simple.
I will vote on Theory pretty regularly. However, in the question of a CP, for example, you need to defend a reason why it’s a reason to vote and not just a reason to reject the argument.