Harbauer,+Zach

Policy Debate Experience: 5 years National Circuit Exposure: YEs Debated for: Centennial, ID Currently debate for Arizona State University

__Overview__

-Do what you want in the round. Read the K, read the politics da, read framework- do what you do best and odds are your speaker points will increase. - Truth > Tech, Quantity of cards < Quality of cards. Read: This is not an excuse to drop arguments. If the 2AC utters the words “vote no” on the politics da, and you do not answer, you will lose. This is a flow check, turns out you should flow. -Process counterplans are cheating and you should lose…but it’s the responsibility of the debaters to prove that - I time flashing - The permutation is your friend -I err on the side that the Aff should at least relate to the topic in some way - Case is where debates are won or lost - The politics disad is not real, but I read it, and I will vote on it. The politics da should be one of the hardest things for the neg to win, I don’t understand why it is considered an “easy” neg argument. -I will vote on T. Competing Interpretations is the default - Speed is not the number of words per minute, it is the number of arguments effectively communicated per minute. -I flow by paper, take this into account -I don’t like reading evidence, but I will.

__Topicality:__ I love it, unfortunately in high school it become this gross mass of unintelligible drops of ink on my flow. SLOW DOWN. As stated before, I flow by paper so I have a really difficult time writing down your arguments when you’re reading at max speed. Debate topicality like it’s a disad (spoiler: It is), I can’t stress this enough. For some reason people debate T like it’s some foreign argument, debate it like it’s a regular disad, do overviews, do line by line, do impact calculus, odds are (if you’re right) you will win, and I will reward you with high speaks. Also, I default to competing interpretations but understand the utility of reasonability. Reasonability functions best as a tie breaker when the debate becomes impossible to decide from a CI stand point. Keep it alive in the rebuttals, it serves you well.

__Theory:__ I was a 2A in high school and it is my belief that the neg gets away with way too much. CP’s that possibly result in the entirety of the 1AC happening are cheating. It is the burden of the aff to prove it. RVI’s aren’t a thing btw. __CP:__ Read them. Defend them. Win them. Not that much to say, if you’re cheating, make sure you can defend yourself. __DA:__ I know it’s a difficult thing to ask, but really try to read a link the plan. The more case specific the disad, the more persuasive your argument is going to be. __Kritik:__ I’m sure most of you just skipped down to this anyway, so I’ll make it brief. I am a flex debater so I’m open to everything. I read the K a lot in high school, now I go for framework a lot, and before my senior year I read k affs all the time. Do what you want, just do it well. I’m not a philosophy grad student so please try to explain things to me like you would a normal human being. I think the perm is probably a good idea the majority of time, at the same time, a smart negative is framing the kritik in such a way as to make the permutation void of any meaning. Ks, and K alts, are a framework as much as a solution to a problem. It’s much harder to perm differing frameworks than it is to combine solutions. __K affs:__ Talk about the topic, please. Talk about race if you want, just relate it to the topic. If you don’t say ANYTHING about the topic then odds are you will lose on framework. __Case:__ This is where I believe debates are won or lost the majority of the time. If you can nullify a large portion of the case then it is much more likely that you will win your disad, and vice versa. If you win a large majority of the case then odds are you will be able to outweigh the disad. The case debate is more than just impact defense. DEBATE THE SOLVENCY. 99% of affs have god awful solvency advocates, talk about it. It complicates the ability for the affirmative to weigh any of the aff against the off case positions. For those 2As out there, if the 1NC spends 4 minutes on the case, do not blow through it in 30 seconds. The case is your house, the negative just tried to break in, protect your house.

Speaker Points:

It’s hard for me to really provide you with a formula for high speaks, and that’s something I’m trying to figure out for myself. So here’s a list of things I will like to hear from you -Impact calculus, sign posting, warrant explanations, clarity, evidence comparison, spin, strong cross-x, voice inflection, flowability