Hackett,+Tony

(he/him) or (they/them) I debated for C. K. McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA, and I'm currently debating for Stanford University. I'm currently affiliated with McClatchy/Nevada Union, Interlake High School (WA), and Milpitas (CA). I'll try to keep this brief -- Ultimately, my goals are to try my hardest and vote for the team who won the debate, no matter who they are. If i have the pleasure of sitting in the back of the room and watching you debate, here are some pieces of advice -- Do what you do best. I'd rather see a well-debated counterplan and disad debate (if that's what you want to do!) than a poorly executed attempt to appease me based on my argumentative preferences in high school. If you're asking yourself at this moment whether or not I'm fine with the arguments you're planning on reading, the answer is almost assuredly yes. Critics that I most respect are: Sarah Lim, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, Kevin Hirn, Jarod Atchison, John Spurlock, and Sam Haley-Hill. When I go about deciding debates, I try answer a series of questions. Primarily, if both teams win all of their arguments, who wins the debate? Is there a major execution error? Is there a team lacking offense on any given position? Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence? Is there significant argument interaction? That being said, here are some specific thoughts.  K affs -- I think Kevin Hirn said it best when he said " Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm still sympathetic to the framework argument (especially in high school). I don't presumptively think that topicality arguments are violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. For what it's worth, I would generally prefer to see a substantive strategy if one's available, but I understand that often framework is the best option (especially in certain circumstances, like when the aff is new or you're from a school with a small research base). I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should brainstorm better responses to "other policy debates solve your offense" and "wiki/disclosure/contestable advocacy in the 1ac provides some degree of predictability/debateability".

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad.""  Disads/CP's -- I love nuanced counterplan/disad debates. Explain the mechanism for your counterplan and slow down on the text. I'm persuaded by presumption arguments insofaras you win a turns case argument or are winning some hard core terminal defense to the aff. I love intrinsic offense and well-prepared stategies over generics with poor evidence quality. Disads with plan specific links are for real.  Topicality -- I've likened to thinking that a lot of topicality (vs. Aff's with plans) is increasingly trivial. I'm willing to vote on it, but please explain your internal links in the context of their aff and make sure you're making clear, technical distinctions. I find these debates incredibly boring so please humor me (good puns get +.1, bad puns get a scowl). I think evidence comparison is a job of the debaters, but I'll call for it if there is a technical question that comes down to how the ev reads or if there is a concern about the validity of args made in the evidence by the debaters where a large portion of the debate rests. Otherwise, up to you! Have fun!