Evans,+Brandon

Brandon Evans Binghamton University 2011-2014

I am in my final year of policy debate for Binghamton University competing in the Open division. Throughout my career, I have had experience debating "traditionally" (topical policy affirmatives, multiple off) and not (kritikal affirmatives, 1-off kritik in every round, occasionally performance). I love this community and everyone in it so long as you do not preach hate and intolerance. I will try my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to run in front of me with an open mind.


 * Flashing Evidence**: Please be competent at paperless debate if you are paperless. Prep ends when you call it, but do not take advantage of this and do not give me any reason to believe you are stealing prep.


 * Speaking**: If I cannot understand you, I might yell "Clear" or "Louder" once or move my seat. I have a significant amount of experience with speed in debate, so that should be fine. Good debaters are fast and clear; great debaters know when to slow down for rhetorical flourishes.


 * Flowing**: Be clear as to how you want me to flow your arguments. The form of your arguments can affect the way I evaluate their content. This does not mean you have to abide by the traditional line-by-line. If you ask me to evaluate the round holistically and invoke performative elements, I will take this into account while avoiding judge intervention.


 * Calling for Evidence**: I will do it if I have to. You should be able to utilize your evidence such that this is unnecessary unless the opponent contests your reading of it.


 * Kritiks**: My favorite kind of argument in debate, but that also means I want to see it done right. I am not a philosophy major, so you will need to synthesize your high theory into something that is understandable to someone who does not necessarily have your background knowledge (**what you should be doing anyway**). I should have at least a shallow understanding of any major critical author you cite, but I should not have to utilize this understanding at all to sign my ballot. You should care about the issues you are talking about, even if you would like to experiment and advocate for a solution you do not necessarily agree with. All links should have an implication. You need to sell me a story. At a minimum, without presenting an alternative role of the ballot, you should show how the aff directly does something bad.


 * Framework**: Not my favorite option, but I will vote for it if you win it. If the team running a K aff does its job and explains why what it is doing in this space matters (promoting a methodology, doing a performance, etc.), it should not be hard to find other points of clash. If they do not do this and defend nothing other than some oppressive system being bad, then framework might be a more viable option for me. In either case, I would much rather prefer aff-inclusive strategies. You do not need to disagree with the entirety of their project to highlight a significant flaw with it, and I think the aff is in serious trouble if they need to run "PiKs bad" theory on your counter-methodology. I am also open to reasons why critical affs might not be allowed to permute. If you **insist** on running framework, read my section on topicality for details. Aside from that, I would like to see K affs make connections to the topic and not just allude to it briefly as a prerequisite to talk about other things.


 * Topicality**: If both sides agree that the debate should be about the theoretical enactment of a policy option, topicality becomes a much easier sell for me. I actually went for T a lot against policy affs before transitioning to 1-off K debating. Go all in on T in the 2NR or it will be hard for me to vote on it. Field-contextual interpretations are best, as otherwise, the interpretation can be construed as a self-serving. I will default to competing interpretations, though winning reasonability as a better paradigm is possible. On that note, I am not sure why competing interpretations necessitates judge intervention any more than reasonability as there is no absolute definition to anything. Proving in-round abuse is helpful, and potential abuse can be a voter. It always helps to provide a topical version of the aff.


 * Disads**: I enjoy them when done well, though I am not the biggest fan of politics D/As in general. Turning the case makes it easier for me to vote on the D/A alone than just outweighing it. That being said, merely saying "the D/A turns the case" is not an argument because that statement can mean any number of things. Impact calculus is absolutely essential. I disagree that the importance of an impact is equal to the probability of it times its magnitude. I would advise you to argue that probability is a more important factor than magnitude or the other way around. I am more prone by default to weigh high-probability, lesser magnitude impacts over high-magnitude, microscopic probability impacts.


 * Counter-plans**: The block should give in-depth comparisons between the plan and the counter-plan instead of keeping it as generic as it was in the 1NC. Without this, small PiCs often become hard to adjudicate. Advantage counter-plans are highly underrated. Clearly explain the competition between the two plans. Permutations need net-benefits in order to win.


 * Other Theory**: In-round abuse is important. I would prefer to see substantive standards over fairness claims (Ex. Condo is bad for activism instead of condo is bad because of strategy skew).


 * Recording**: If you would like to have your round featured on Binghamton Speech & Debate's Live Policy Debate Collection, talk to me about it. I will not publish anything without the permission of all parties involved.