Horn,+Jeffrey

Green Valley HS (NV) ‘15 University of Nevada, Las Vegas ‘19

I'd like to be in email chains please---jeffreyrhorn96@gmail.com.

I strongly believe debate is a competitive game. I believe my role as a critic is to decide the debate in the least interventionary way possible. This means a few things:

**1) ** Technical miscues/drops will weigh very heavily in my decision. I firmly believe in tech over truth.

**2) ** I prefer explicit refutation and line by line debating. I will not crossapply any implcit answers to an argument for you, nor will I be very happy if your speech is a 8 minute overview.

**3) ** Cover your bases early. If a fatal error is made in the 2AC or the Block, I strongly side against allowing new arguments in rebuttals to correct those mistakes. For example, if the 2AC does not make a permutation on a counterplan or a counterplan links to politics argument, it would be difficult to persuade me the 1AR gets to recover and make those arguments. Likewise, I believe the 2NR strategy is predicated off of the 1AR's mistakes and thus will spend a lot of time reviewing my flows to protect the 2NR. This isn't to say that you shouldn't try to get back in the game if you made mistakes early, obviously you should, just know that you will need to spend time being clever and explaining why you get a new argument.

**4) ** Evidence Comparison will go a long way. Compare the warrants in cards, make even if statements, and develop framing issues about how I should evaluate the other teams evidence. Spin outweighs truth, if their card stinks and you don't tell me it stinks, I am likely to reward their spin. In short, I will likely only read a card if there is a dispute about it. My specific opinions about certain arguments:

**Counterplans **-I lean negative on most CP issues. I tend to believe counterplans do not need a solvency advocate or even a card depending on the circumstance. I believe a lot more negatives could exploit silly affirmative advantages with intutitive counterplans. For example, if their advantage relies on the federal government not providing funding to the navy, I would definitely buy a simple counterplan text that increases naval funding. I like smart uniqueness counterplans, I think the negative is allowed to amend their counterplan or even read a new one in the 2NC if they wish (its a constructive).

I lean aff on counterplans that compete off normal means---I'm persuaded by "perm do the cp---its not textually competitive". But I can also be convinced that normal means debates are good. Similarly, I tend to believe textual competition is more important than functional competition. In the same vein, I believe plan wording is extremely important for negative strategy.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I'm neutral on consult and conditions counterplans. I think there are good arguments on both sides of the competition and theory debate, but in general I don't get thrilled generic consult and conditions cps, the more specific the better

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I lean aff on process counterplans, I tend to believe if the counterplans results in the entire aff its not comeptitive.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I generally lean neg on conditionality, being neg is hard, aff bias is real. It'd be hard to convince me the neg doesn't get 2 conditional advocacies, I still lean slightly neg at 3 but good aff conditionality debating can convince me, 4 and up I would probably lean aff

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">PICs are generally good if they are specific. Word PICs are usually silly and not competitive.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Disads **-evidence quality tends to matter highly in these debates. Framing tends to matter a lot in these debates, I value teams who identify the part of the DA they are winning and the part they are most likely to lose. For example, if you think you are winning the uniqueness debate, make a "uniqueness controls the direction of the link argument", or if you think you are winning the link debate, "links controls the direction of uniqueness". I find both of these arguments can act as crucial tie-breakers in close debates. Politics is good, evidence comparison matters a ton in these debates. I will reward teams who compare the warrants in both teams cards and identify which warrants the other team's evidence doesn't assume and why that is significant. Impact calculus is extremely important - always prioritize case turns the DA and DA turns case arguments. I'm in the camp that DA turns case arguments don't need to be carded, these can be made from smart analytical arguments - but cards always help. I have a soft spot for teams who consolidate the block to just a disad and case. Good case debating is essential in these debates.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Critiques **-specific links are crucial. Negs who do not contextualize their critique to the aff are likely to lose my ballot on "the critique doesn't interact with the specificity of the aff". I'm a big believer that most critique alts are silly, and wish more affs would make a push on the ability for them to solve deeply entrenched systems of power/etc. Smart aff teams should defend arguments grounded in pragmatism as opposed to utopian alternatives. Aff teams are most likely to lose my ballot on dropping one of the "K tricks" IE epistemology arguments, framework, turns case, value to life outweighs extinction, no impact to death etc. Neg teams should dedicate time towards winning a framework argument that instructs how I view the debate, otherwise, I will default to assuming the affirmative plan is fiated and allow the aff to weigh their impacts. These debates are much easier to win if the neg wins that the debate should rather be about pedagogy/ethics.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">T **-I default to competing interpretations, am persuaded by limits more than ground, and think fairness can be an impact in and of itself. I am also persuaded by using limits/ground as an internal link but think these impacts shouldn't just be explained as "education" but more as a nuanced impact of some sort (critical thinking, advocacy skills, etc)

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Topicality/Framework **---I believe “T/framework” has two distinct strategies. If extended more as a “Topicality” argument, I’m intrigued by the claim that we should debate the resolution because it is flawed, and therefore generates a balanced controversy from which we can engage in mutual dialogue (and thus garner certain critical thinking, advocacy, and truth-testing skills). Second, if extended as a “framework” argument, the negative should forward more of a “counter-methodology” argument, about how engaging in institutional politics is a better methodology to resolve the affirmative’s harms. I enjoy both of these strategies (or a mixture of them) when deployed correctly. For affirmatives answering T/Framework, I find I tend to err neg in these debates mostly because the affirmative makes little effort to engage in “link defense”. Offering a specific counter-interpretation, extending defense to the neg’s limits and ground arguments, and providing examples of what is allowed under your vision of debate will go a long ways in front of me.