Hennigan

Craig Hennigan Wayne State University

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 7 years. I now coach at Wayne State University.

I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I //REQUIRE// a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory. Only if there is significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate."

I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome.

I will vote on T. I like me some good interpretations of the topic. As the season progresses, it is less likely that I will vote on T as once again, I would like to see real abuse to pull the trigger on it, and that usually takes time to develop.

Anything that you intend to win on, it's probably best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

I’ll vote on the C-P/risk of d/a. I do this probably the most often.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. Project affs have a losing record with me so far with few wins. It seems like it would be a far more difficult way to win a debate round. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there though.

MIFA rule violations need to be impacted and debated out in the round to gain a ballot from it.