Kim,+Bobby

I debated for Meadows for four years, and participated in college debate for a short period of time. I now work for my alma mater and for Pennsbury high school. My preferences center less upon the ideological variance of your argument (kritik, policy, theory, etc.) and more upon how those arguments are run. There are a few meta-issues that apply to all arguments:

Comparison is everything – Evidence comparison, impact comparison, framework comparison, link comparison, etc. Botched comparison debates with little clash, or debates with no comparison at all, will usually make me default towards the team that has the better evidence. Impact comparison plays a crucial role in my decisions – given that, of course, you've won the link and uniqueness. I feel like this should be obvious, but probability/timeframe of the impact/turns case args are not based solely upon the standalone impact, but also the link and the uniqueness claim. Specificity will set you ahead both in terms of speaker points and strategy. Generic kritik debates are terrible. Generic policy debates can be equally mind-numbing (Consult Nato, etc.). If your evidence is generic, then contextualizing the link claim to the affirmative can help make up for that deficiency. Specific targeted theory arguments – i.e. pics without a solvency advocate, or multiactor fiat that includes the affirmative actor – are much more persuasive than general pics bad.

Quality of evidence is very important to me. I will read evidence regarding the crucial issues in the debate. My position on spin vs. quality of evidence is that a fantastic piece of evidence generally speaks for itself, and that amazing spin of horrible evidence will not be able to trump it. Spin of “ok” evidence is more open to debate and evaluation. I can be convinced that some evidence is so horrible that it should be evaluated on the same level as an analytic. Qualification debates should be more frequent.

Some other general comments: - Overviews are generally useless and repetitive. - When debating a kritik (whether neg or aff), please impact framework. Talk about how I evaluate the debate if you win the framework regardless of your side (no kritik alt, link args irrelevant, don't get to weigh aff, etc.) If no framework impact calculus is done, I will generally lean towards letting the aff weigh their impacts and the neg getting their alternative. - I’m pretty well-versed regarding kritik literature. - I can be convinced that there is zero risk, although I’ve rarely seen it executed well in practice. - I don’t think quantity (5 pieces of trash evidence) is a substitute for quality (1 amazing piece of evidence). - This should be obvious, but be clear. I think some teams would be more successful if they spoke a little slower but were 100% understandable, rather than going at breakneck speed the entire speech. - Most Aff kritik answers are pretty stupid/don’t apply (like realism to most kritiks). - Testing the “certainty” or “conditionality” of plan passage is not a persuasive theory argument. - I default to rejecting the argument. “Reject the team” should have warrants. - Despite my reputation as a kritik hack, I went for all arguments as a debater. I enjoy a policy throwdown as much as a nuanced kritik debate.