Stevens,+Adam

Adam Stevens Brooklyn Technical High School

I do not believe potential abuse is a voter. If you want me to pull the trigger on a procedural matter, either on a T or framework flow there needs to be a clear abuse story articulated in the rebuttal speeches.

I think its fine for the 1AC to declare a framework for the debate that does not adhere to commonly accepted topical affirmation of the resolution, but work needs to be done to show why topical affirmation of the resolution is a step in the wrong direction for the hour and a half we will be together in the room. Same goes for a negative that wants to win with on the k, but with a variant: the neg has to actually link to something the 1AC said or did while the critical affirmative has to link, basically, to the failings they see in what one might call "traditional" affirmative debate advocacy. That's harder for an aff to win than a lot of negative teams I see realize. Cheesy USFG links won't cut it in either case. Anybody facing the K who exposes cheesy link work will win every time because I want, desperately, for link debating to improve.

Hint: I do not believe in the category of "performance" debate. I think every debate is a performance, a choice to perform in a certain way, and that those choices have political content. Now if debaters don't want to go there that's fine. I'll wander around fiat land with you all you want.