Zhan,+Bobby

I debated for NYU at the NDT last year. I started with a policy background but debate more critical arguments now. I reward teams that put a lot of time into their arguments, no matter if it's policy or performance.

Everything below is just some thoughts I have that shouldn't matter too much in debates. I'll vote for arguments I dislike without remorse (consult, floating piks, etc) if your opponent misses the mark and you take advantage.

Here's what you really want to know: clash of civilization debates. Merits to both "sides". Stick with arguments, not moral platitudes. If you read an untopical aff, framework is a legitimate strategy against you. So no, aff, reading framework is not an egregious act of violence. And no, neg, this untopical aff did not completely deprive you of your world-saving decision making skills. Focus on your vision for debate and why it's better. Do impact calc on fairness and education. If you read a policy aff, yes, you have to defend the justifications of your aff. 2ns, we get it, the aff doesn't literally materialize but they get to defend it's a good idea. Nexus question here is impact prioritization: whoever wins that is ahead.

Critical debates: Neg, ask yourself this: does your critique have a fundamental disagreement with the aff? If not, I'm thinking the aff is not so bad. No, saying "we're a competing method" does not establish competition. If you have a serious point of contention, the debate should go okay.

Counterplans: If your cp is textually and functionally competitive, you are good to go. I will vote for word pics or process cps, but only after carefully reevaluating some of my major life decisions.

Disads: Not much to say here, except that uniqueness cannot control the direction of the link. If the aff wins the plan does not affect XYZ issue and concedes everything else, even though the neg overwhelmingly wins uniqueness of XYZ issue, there is minimal to no risk of the disad.