Clark,Quentin

Harker High School class of 2020 Varsity LD Hi, I'm Quentin. I am mostly a larp debater, but I frequently fall on Ks and theory to get out of sticky situations. Prefs guide

Policy=1 "Policy" Ks (Cap, Security, Afropes, Biopower, etc.) =1 Theory=2 "High theory" Ks ( The Anti-baudrillardian-semilacanidan-dark-deluzian-kware-suicide-bombxr or whatever) =2 Framework=3 Tricks/Spikes=3 Kant=strike me

__General__ In general, DO IMPACT WEIGHING. SO many debates could be won or lost on good impact comparison, so do it at the very beginning on the last rebuttal speech. Explain to me why, even everything the other side says is true, you still win the debate. I'm totally OK with spreading, but if you can go 450 or something stupid you are probably incredibly unclear. Keep it to around 375, and be super clear. Some people can go really fast but remain crystal clear, so try to do this. Add me to the mail chain. 20quentinc@students.harker.org. I will look at evidence, but only if flaws are specifically pointed out.

__Aff__ I'm totally cool with soft left impacts or policy big-stick impacts. I think a combination of both could be really neat, like, free speech is good for minorities AND prevents extinction through debasing terrorists or whatever. For framework, I don't think you need a real framework. If you just read bostrom and patterson that's cool with me. For non topical Affs, do it well and make me care. You can do anything from scream about racism to read surrealist poetry, but if I think your performance is just to win debate rounds, I will be very inclined to drop you on framework or Bluhdorn. I also heavily lean Aff on case extensions. I would recommend you take at least 15 seconds to fully extend whatever AC offense you want to go for but if you just don't get to it I'll extend it for you.

__Neg__ See the offcase specific things below I will NOT lean Neg on extensions of anything, because you have 6 minutes in the 1nc. Thats enough time to fully crush the Aff, make a sandwich, watch the LOTR extended cut, and finally read and understand Simu and Simulacran. As such, explicitly extend offense you want to to weigh.

__DAs__ Yes please. A one to two off DA with tons of case answers is a super legit strat. Make sure you clarify the link story and why it turns or outweighs the case, although this can be 1NR weighing if you want. Also really cool if it 100% takes out the solvency of the Aff, like the Title IX DA for JanFeb. __CPs__ Also great! People in LD will figure this out eventually but advantage CPs and strategic PICS are a little broken in how good they are. Read these with a net benefit of politics or case turns? Bingo. However. Don't think that __Ks__ You've probably heard this a million times, but run them if you get them. I don't want to see you read Psychoanalysis and be unable to explain the death drive, or read Nietzsche and not be able to explain resentment. Also, like you saw in my prefs guide, I like more concrete Ks with real links. This is why I think Cap, Security, some Anti Blackness, and other Ks are awesome, because they have real links: Increasing the economy is definitely capitalist. This is also why I generally don't like Ks that mostly use the 1NC as time to ramble about something totally unrelated and sketchily avoid perms with fancy wording or a miscut card. If you want to critique Greek conditional logic or something complex thats super cool, but make sure you have a real link. Prove why the Aff is a bad idea and not why the K is a good idea, because the perm is magic. Also, whoever it is that said a K is a da and a CP is kinda wrong. First, most CPs are already a CP with a DA, but more importantly what sets the K apart is that it looks at the fundamental assumptions of the premises, ideas, or logic of the Aff. Thats a lot deeper than a CP and DA. If anything, a K is like a CP with a DA with its own framework.

Tricks I am cool with Tricks I kinda hate __Theory__ Here are my preferences. I can be persuaded otherwise, I just think there are "true args" and will default to them in cases of no contention or a very close debate. __Framework__ Like to see interesting new frameworks, especially K stuff versus Util. However. Do not read anything that... As such, if you want to read a 7 minute Kant NC with 17 tricks and 57 hidden a prioris, I will drop you the second I hear "normative ethics are defined by constitutive obligations" leave your lips. Its a silly personal thing but I just despise the guy. Also, I default to
 * ROB
 * Epistemology (occasionally a very interesting arg)
 * Root cause
 * Floating PIKS
 * pre=fiat nonsence
 * "you don't get to weigh the aff" that are not substantiated (I think ROB and Epis are)
 * 1 conditional is OK, 2 is getting there but probably OK, 3 is pretty bad, 4+ is a incontestable link
 * PICS good for education, bad for fairness
 * Fairness and education both matter
 * Reasonability over counter interps
 * Frivolous theory is dumb
 * The Neg can make totally new args in the NR against poorly explained 1AC spikes. See Bob Overings article about it (or was it Marshall Thompson?)
 * "Abuse" compounds and can be aggregated. Three condo PICS is probably uniquely worse than three condo or three pics.
 * Denies consequences, because they exist. Saying otherwise is offensive and wrong.
 * Anything remotely related to constituivism.
 * Deontology especially.
 * Kant especially especially.
 * Epistemic modesty over epistemic certainty
 * Debate is good (its why were here)

__Speaker points__ I think speakers points are totally arbitrary, especially in LD. Like, what are they supposed to represent? Because they are primarily used for a) awards and b) elim round seeds, I think I'll give points based off of who was "the better debater". This means I'll ignore stuff like the quality of evidence, I will solely base it off of the strategic decisions, persuasive ness, with extra points for good practices, making me laugh (intentionally), and/or making me think. Heres my rubric 30- You gave a perfect speech. (insert personal favorite debater here) with the Internet with 100 years of prep time would have given this speech. 29.9-29.5- You are a very, very good debater. Made the right decisions, was nice, and crystallized why I should vote for you. 29-29.4- You are quite good. Did everything above with some slight errors. 28-28.9- You are around an average debater, who still makes strategic errors and clouds up the round more than it needs to be. 27-27.9- You are learning to debate, and so make some beginner level mistakes or made giant errors. Its OK, though, keep debating and learning! 26-26.9- You did something offensive or incredibly dumb. Below 26: You cheated or something.

I will roughly change this based off of the pool I'm judging, of course.

__Policy debate notes__ Everything above applies, with the exception of condo. I probably default to like 3 being a little bad, 4 being pretty bad, and 5 being bonkers. I will also be more harsh on speaker points because Policy requires better debating, meaning a 29.7 in LD is more like a 29.3 in Policy.