Wayne Campbell ParadigmLast changed 7/2 5:56P EST
Debated a year for Petoskey
MSU 2018, currently debating
Please use one and put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email>Pocketbox but I won't be bitter.
Seems to be a problem. If you do it and if I catch you, then I will drop you.
I don't think anything in my paradigm deviates from the norm enough for you to spend pre-round prep reading it. I could be wrong.
You should debate what you are best at. I’ve voted for every genre of argument. There are some arguments my record seems to favor, but I don't think it's usually significant enough to justify a change in your strategy.
I think the primary purpose of debate is and should be to learn, research, and make reasoned arguments about a contested resolution. As such, I try to defer to what is actually debated and often vote against what I think is true.
Other predispositions written below are thoughts I have about arguments in the abstract. That is all it is and sometimes it changes faster than this page gets edited. I think it's pretty reliable though.
I’ve done some preseason research on the topic and judged some debates, but I don’t have a strong normative predisposition about what the topic should look like. If you want to win on topicality, you should use the opportunity to craft that vision for me. “Core of the topic” cues are not something that will click as well with me because I don’t have a strong vision of what that should be/is.
Affs should have, at least, some sort of fundamental relationship to the topic.
I'm not sure if fairness is an intrinsic good.
I don't see a strong connection between debating a topical plan and producing activism or better activism. I'm more amenable to predictable limits arguments, and the education that those limits are more likely to consistently produce I do think is an intrinsic good.
I think I vote aff when the 2NR goes for FW >60% of the time. This isn’t because I dislike FW, but because a lot of the time the aff has a set of impact-turns to FW that they win the technical debate on. I think that a good defense of why the neg’s interp doesn’t preclude the themes of the aff coupled with impact calculus can remedy that.
Competing methodologies is persuasive... I think the aff getting to apply traditional standards of competition into K debate makes it very difficult to be negative.
I’m really frustrated with some of Michigan’s reliance of super generic kritiks that rely on links of omission or really non-central assumptions of the aff in order to win. I don’t hate all kritik debates…. I don’t think… I just would prefer it if the debates were more case-specific.
Are something that Michigan debate needs more of— even if you debate kritikally. A lot of affirmatives’ internal links don’t stand to scrutiny and smart analytical presses early on go a long way and increase your speaker points.
Unless it’s perf con and/or conditionality, it’s almost always a reason to reject the argument. Process/agent/condition counterplans are probably bad. PICs I’m down with if they exclude large enough portions of the aff such that the aff should seem to have to defend them. Heavily neg on conditionality. I lean more neg than I otherwise would on all theory questions if it's a new aff or if it is not a new aff but is still undisclosed (that last bit is more Michigan-specific).
Is towards less change