Querido,+Ernie

Ernie Querido University School (FL).

__TOPICALITY, META-FRAMEWORK, and META-THEORY__ I see debate as a competitive game with both limited rules and fair imbalances. Play (and defend) the game as you wish, but just remember that a “resolved” statement drives the game. The following assumes my (changeable) theory defaults:

AFF = not status quo NEG = not AFF NEG can be part of AFF NEG cannot include all of AFF

HOWEVER, evidenced positions tend to trump theoretical objections to them, and those theoretical objections are rarely persuasive round winners, even when dropped.

__THE GAME__ Mention (insert letter)-SPEC, then 25.0 points for each neg debater. Seriously.

Both CPs and case defense are similar in their function to eliminate aff advantages from the decision calculus. In either case, neg needs a disad. Me gusto este categoria de debate.

If neg says Lacan or Zizek or Stravakakis or what not on this topic, that’s 25.0 for each neg debater. Kudos to neg if the K is at least topic-specific. Even more if it’s aff-specific.

When it comes to the K, aff would do better to defend its underlying assumptions, e.g. realism good, militarism good, science good, environmental management good, ethics good, etc. That theory dump = NOT persuasive at all. If there’s an alt, aff needs to answer it, or aff will lose because utopia is always better than the plan.

Yes, I've voted for the project. Can't lie. I'm a fan. The "framework" arguments just don't sound very persuasive when the 1AC is 8 min of built-in offense against them. The best way to beat the project is to engage it. (Props to Nicole Richter for that one.)

__HOW I MAKE DECISIONS__ Successful debaters resolve competing arguments in their favor. My role is to decide if you did that more successfully than your opponent did. I can only do that if I can understand your argument.

The quality of your questions and answers, of your positions, of your evidence, and of your argument comparisons is likely to be (but not always) directly proportional to both your speaker points and your likelihood of victory. Funny = more points. Dumb = FAIL.

I flow as much as I can, thus I do my best not to read cards at the end of a round. Sometimes, it can’t be helped.