Rickard,+Jason

In general: The debate is up to you. I am open to voting for any argument as you long you can give intelligent reasons to why it is good for me to vote that way. Generally, I prefer a specific CP, an engaging case debate, or a topic specific Kritik or at least specifc links, but these are just my preferences, so take that, as you will. Make choices in your last rebuttal, a few well-developed arguments are better than a multitude of shallow ones. These choices need to begin in the block or the 1AR and made clear in the final rebuttals. Distinctions are very important to me. Please compare evidence and contextualize the debate on all flows. I will and usually do read evidence but I prefer you make the comparisons so I don’t have to. Lastly, I love debate, have fun with it, relax and if you make me laugh, it definitely won’t hurt your speaks.

Arguments:

Topicality: I will vote on T, but it will be a lot easier if you have a specific violation. Make sure you impact these arguments with what significant ground you are losing or why you they are uniquely not predictable. In most instances T comes before theory though you probably can convince me otherwise. Lastly, I am not a big fan of specification arguments and I am easily persuaded that CX checks.

Theory: Having an interpretation for your theory argument is a good thing to have. Severance is usually bad. Intrinsicness is usually bad. But I generally think conditionality is usually a good and necessary tool for the negative, but I can be persuaded otherwise. PIC’s on a substantive issue are fine but while I will vote on word PIC’s it won’t be hard for the aff to convince me that PIC’s out of one word are abusive. Combining theoretical objections into a coherent interpretation is preferable. i.e. Multiple conditional cp’s bad or conditional PIC’s bad are both more compelling than just conditionality bad. You don’t need to slow down much for conditionality, but if I don’t catch your embedded cheap shot then it will be difficult to get me to vote for it. Please don’t just read blocks back and forth at each other, instead try to engage your opponent on specific arguments. Lastly, either go for it or don’t, i.e. if you want me to vote on theory go for theory but don’t expect me to vote on theory if it is a small part of the last rebuttals.

DA’s and CP’s: I prefer a specific, well researched, CP and DA strat. However case and a DA is equally fine. I have no problem with a politics debate, but generic/non-sensical links if contested by the aff will significantly mitigate the risk of your impact. For CP’s the importance of your solvency evidence really depends on the quality of the affirmative evidence. If aff evidence is generic then your evidence can be just as generic, and if their evidence is specific to their agent/method then your evidence better be able to overcome that. DA’s that have both an external impact and a case turn are especially nice. Good analysis explaining your scenario is appreciated, and if your link story is detailed or confusing then it is even more important. Lastly, if your DA is absurd this will seriously affect the probability I give it in my evaluation.

Kritiks: I have no problem with the K nor do I have any particular affinity towards it. Specific kritiks are better than ones titled by the author who writes the evidence you are reading. At the very least you need to articulate a specific link story and a good link wall in the 2nc/1nr can help you do this. Aff, I find generic kritik bad debates to be very unpersuasive and annoying. Also, generic K answers like realism arguments are not nearly as compelling as engaging them in their argument and/or defending your advocacy. Kritik alternatives need to be competitive and, again, they are better if they are specific to the aff you are debating. Lastly, I find the majority of framework debates unnecessary with the exception being the reps k. Most K framework debates could be avoided with impact analysis.

Framework: Like I said above, please don’t make framework arguments unless they are necessary. The aff needs a plan that grounds them in the resolution, you can do whatever else you want with the affirmative, but please read a plan text. If you don’t I will easily vote negative on T-You need a plan. I find that in a lot of debates both teams make framework arguments and their interpretations are functionally identical. Also, bad framework args/pre-empts in the 1ac are usually unnecessary and just scream that you are not ready for a K debate. Make the argument in the 2ac if it’s necessary. Good framework debates involve detailed impact analysis that develops the interaction between the 1ac and the kritik. Lastly, like T and theory, you need to have a good interpretation of your framework in order for it to be compelling.

Random: Likes – humor, intelligent arguments, and strategic use of cx. Dislikes – card clipping, under highlighting your evidence (you will only get as much of an argument as your evidence warrants), blippy speeches, extending tag lines instead of warranted arguments, stealing prep, unnecessary aggression or rudeness.