Crunkilton,+Cody

I am a senior at the University of Minnesota. I’ve always been a 2N.

**Pre-round synopsis **: Bad for Ks, conditionality is good, calls lots of cards, enjoys impact turns, dislikes aff vagueness but isn’t sure what to do about it

I've realized that I am really bad for them. I am liable to vote for things like the perm double bind or you don’t get an alt because you shouldn't be able to just wish away entrenched mindset shifts. The silly compromise the community has reached where the judge compares the impacts of hypothetical adoption of a plan vs a fiated global mindset shift makes zero sense to me. I obviously can be persuaded otherwise and have voted for them before but if you have other stuff available you should read that instead. I also think that if you are being vague or confusing about what you're saying the aff gets new answers when your k becomes a real argument. If you can’t explain how the aff specifically causes your k’s impacts (i.e. green economy --> cap and cap-->extinction doesn't mean offshore wind will cause extinction) I am definitely not a good judge for you.
 * Oceans topic update on kritiks:**

Longer version: **Entertain me **. I will give extra points to people who amuse me or, if you are not an innately funny person, at least wear a funny hat. **Conditionality is good: ** It isn’t impossible for me to vote on it but probably won’t happen. Judge kick I’m unsure about, so tell me what to do. **Theory **: impact calc is good. Reject the argument not the team for everything but conditionality. Severance perms will never be a reason to reject the team. I am highly unlikely to vote on cheap shots. Despite my neg proclivities on condo, I’m actually fairly receptive to theory vs cheating CPs- process, agent, really most stuff that isn’t topic specific. The problem in these debates mostly happens when the 1ar doesn’t spend much time or drops stuff. I think lit determines whether stuff is legit, so have cards about why it is topic specific/important and have solvency advocates **Offensive stuff: ** I think debate is a game and we learn real world skills explaining why things like imperialism or colonialism are bad. I'd prefer to not vote on language k's, but there isn't any reason for you to use gendered/ableist/racist language so you should avoid it. **K’s: ** explain why the aff is bad. Saying “method first” without explaining why that matters is not sufficient. **CP’s: ** States, international fiat and agent/process cp’s with no relation to the topic are questionable. **K affs without a plan: ** T is the path of least resistance. I think we choose topics for a reason and switching sides/some predictability is good. I don't know why reading plans requires teams to "roleplay" the USFG and also think that most of the arguments for why being forced to defend the federal government is bad are silly. The problem is how we do risk calc. If you don’t read a plan and are in front of me, the most persuasive arg I have heard is that alternate styles of debate are more accessible to various oppressed groups and debate matters more for them than rich white kids- having cards or studies on this would be nice, but I don’t know if those exist yet. If you are going for T against a not the topic aff, I am much more likely to be persuaded by limits/skills/stasis point than roleplaying the state makes us awesome policymakers argument. ** K affs with a plan: ** the best way to win is to take out the probability of their disads- you don’t have to read complexity/predictions cards, but make args why their stuff isn’t true/leaves stuff out. This ( []) has some good ideas you should make use of if you want to do this. **Evidence: ** important. I call lots of cards. **Flowing: ** I flow on paper, catch a decent amount of what you say but still miss stuff—slow down on important things (and theory)