Chris Pierini
01-07-11, 12:34 PM
This will be my 5th year involved in debate. I debated CEDA for three years in college at Marist and coached high school for two. I'm now co-head coach at UW debate.
Two factors frame how I assess debate rounds. (Stolen from Chris Pierini) 1) Technique comes before truth. 2) Offense vs. Defense. This means that if there no solvency deficit to the CP and no offense on the DA/CP, I've pretty much already voted negative. "Zero Risk" doesn't make much sense to me except in rare “factual” instances (ie: the plan has literally already happened). This doesn’t mean that defense isn’t vital to an effective strategy; it just means that defense is insufficient to warrant a ballot on its own.
In General: I’m down for any framework as long as it’s run clearly and logically. I prefer CASE debates above all else. My flow is strict and speed is fine, just be clear. I do NOT believe in the tricotomy.
DA and CP: Do whatever just make sure net benefits are sizeable enough to win.
Theory: I’m less practiced in theory than other types of argument. I can evaluate anything you want just be warned that you will be hard pressed to win K needs an alternative always 100% of the time in front of me. You don’t necessarily need a plan but you better have a serious reason why you don’t and I’m going to give your opponents a lot of leeway. I love hearing an education debate and you will have the highest likely hood of getting my ballot if you go for those arguments. Just remember no backside rebuttals means I have to at least somewhat protect the other-side in general and especially in a theory debate. Furthermore make sure you are going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/ whatever is an impact-able argument. Additionally, you should probably make arguments about how to weight these VI's against each other if there in conflict. Potential abuse isn't a voter period.
K: I debated mostly Ks in college; I’m familiar with most of the lit you are using. Generics are fine just make sure you are clear on how my ballot functions in this round. You need to have a framework. I’m fine with K affirmatives just realize that I ran these things so I really do know what you need to win and I’m not going to give you a ton of leeway on for example having a clear internal links story out of fairness to your opponent.
POO's: Call them but I'll just take them "under consideration". My flow will protect you just let them give there speech.
Speaker Points: 26.5-29 standard range. Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents I am watching and listening, we are a community of adults, so act like it. I have given 20s before.
Two factors frame how I assess debate rounds. (Stolen from Chris Pierini) 1) Technique comes before truth. 2) Offense vs. Defense. This means that if there no solvency deficit to the CP and no offense on the DA/CP, I've pretty much already voted negative. "Zero Risk" doesn't make much sense to me except in rare “factual” instances (ie: the plan has literally already happened). This doesn’t mean that defense isn’t vital to an effective strategy; it just means that defense is insufficient to warrant a ballot on its own.
In General: I’m down for any framework as long as it’s run clearly and logically. I prefer CASE debates above all else. My flow is strict and speed is fine, just be clear. I do NOT believe in the tricotomy.
DA and CP: Do whatever just make sure net benefits are sizeable enough to win.
Theory: I’m less practiced in theory than other types of argument. I can evaluate anything you want just be warned that you will be hard pressed to win K needs an alternative always 100% of the time in front of me. You don’t necessarily need a plan but you better have a serious reason why you don’t and I’m going to give your opponents a lot of leeway. I love hearing an education debate and you will have the highest likely hood of getting my ballot if you go for those arguments. Just remember no backside rebuttals means I have to at least somewhat protect the other-side in general and especially in a theory debate. Furthermore make sure you are going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/ whatever is an impact-able argument. Additionally, you should probably make arguments about how to weight these VI's against each other if there in conflict. Potential abuse isn't a voter period.
K: I debated mostly Ks in college; I’m familiar with most of the lit you are using. Generics are fine just make sure you are clear on how my ballot functions in this round. You need to have a framework. I’m fine with K affirmatives just realize that I ran these things so I really do know what you need to win and I’m not going to give you a ton of leeway on for example having a clear internal links story out of fairness to your opponent.
POO's: Call them but I'll just take them "under consideration". My flow will protect you just let them give there speech.
Speaker Points: 26.5-29 standard range. Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents I am watching and listening, we are a community of adults, so act like it. I have given 20s before.