Shen,+John


 * Westminster '15 **
 * Harvard '19 **

- The line-by-line in a certain debate matters more than my biases. - Tech is important but your arguments should be true as well -- this ties in to the point below. - Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant. If a team drops an "argument" that isn't even an argument and the other team gives new explanation, new answers/cross applications are justified - 0 risk is possible. - Presumption goes neg unless the neg has presented a CP in which case it goes aff. - I think the politics disad is one of the core values of debate (this is not sarcasm)
 * A few overall things **


 * Case ** —I think affs that actually solve for their advantages are better than random small affs that access 10 squirrely impacts through bad internal link chains. Attacking the stem of the internal link chains. This makes more sense than just fighting back with 20 impact defense cards. Good negative teams will engage the case throughout the debate -- this is my favorite debate.


 * CPs— ** Whether cheating counterplans compete or not depends on how well the aff answers the annoying 10 point neg block perm block, where they define “should” and “resolved”, etc. I think theory against these counterplans is definitely an option and I'm pretty aff leaning on CPs that compete off of certainty and immediacy, but I don’t understand the 2AR going for “reject the CP” when the 2NR has gone for the CP. Rejecting the CP and the team in that instance almost always mean the same thing. I don't believe in that "the status quo is always an option." Affs should impact solvency deficits in terms of their advantages and how that affects terminal impacts.

**Theory** ** — ** This is mostly about whether you argue it well. I have no predispositions to it on account of having been both a 2A and a 2N. I think both sides are equally abusive.


 * T— ** I dream about topicality. Competing interpretations vs. reasonability evokes the question of what is a reasonable interpretation. Believe in topicality and it will believe in you too.


 * K— ** Make sure to explain the framework under which I should evaluate the alternative -- saying "X" first is not a reason to discard the plan -- it's circular to say "Don't evaluate the plan because X is first". My favorite K's are security, Heidegger, and Nietzsche. I also enjoy the kritik of political capital and why the plans kills it with a competitive counterplan as the alternative.