O'Brien,+Connor

Connor O’Brien GBS 2012 Northwestern 2016

I’m a sophomore debater at NU. I taught at the Northwestern camp this summer and judged a bunch of practice debates, so I'm somewhat familiar with the economic engagement topic.

Overall thoughts – Pick your battles – I usually think debaters put too many under-explained arguments in the last rebuttal – if you collapse down to fewer arguments and use the extra time to explain them/compare them to your opponent’s answers I’m a lot more likely to think you won those arguments than if you extend everything.

Tech vs truth – tech usually wins, but it can’t paper over major holes in your argument. If your K relies on a mischaracterization of the aff or you don’t have a real “PC key” card for your politics DA, and the aff calls you on it, you’re going to lose. I think a bunch of debaters blow off these sorts of analytics – you should take them seriously.

Debaters being unnecessarily rude or mean tends to annoy me – being aggressive in cx is fine, but being obnoxious will make me not like you.

Specific arguments – Kritiks: They’re fine – not super familiar with args other than reps Ks, Heidegger and cap, but I’m willing to listen. Winning a hard-core framework arg (“no K’s allowed” or “they don’t get the case”) will require you to be way ahead on that part of the debate. Winning specific links to the aff and stopping them from weighing the case (however you do that) are super important. On the aff, just going for “reps/epistemology/whatever don’t matter” seems like the path of most resistance - defend your reps etc. so that you can win offense even if you lose framework. K affs in the sense of affs that defend a plan but read K-ish advantages are fine - I'm not sure frameworks that try to exclude these kinds of arguments make a ton of sense. Affs that don't read or defend a topical plan are a different story - my decision obviously depends on the arguments made by each team, but all else being equal I think the arguments in favor of requiring affs to be topical are pretty persuasive.

Counterplans/Theory: Advantage/alternate mechanism CPs are good. CPs that might result in the whole aff are more questionable – I’ll be more open to them the better/more specific your solvency ev and competition args. Counterplans that “compete” on normal means/likely implementation do not compete, and CPs that compete on certainty or delay are questionable. 0-1 conditional world is probably OK, 2 is debatable, 3+ is pretty questionable. I’ll only kick the CP for you if you tell me to in the 2NR. I don’t think “judge kick bad” is really distinct from overall conditionality – if the neg wins condo good and cross-applies it that’s probably good enough. Conditionality might be a voter; other theory args are usually reasons to reject the argument.

Disads: I like politics – just be ready to deal with the usual logical flaws with the disad. The aff shouldn’t be afraid to point out link/internal link problems analytically (and the neg should take these args seriously). Turns case is really useful, as is “case turns the disad.” The following speech should make sure to answer these args because they’re often decisive.

Topicality: It’s a voting issue. The neg needs to prove the aff is nontopical to win, they don’t have to win abuse. On the neg, a fair caselist and a clear link to the limits DA are usually the most important arguments to win. For the aff, you should have an interpretation you’ve actually thought about, defense against the neg’s limits args, and clear offense for your interpretation (not just “our aff is educational”). Reasonability (in the sense of “we should have to provide an acceptable interpretation, not a perfect one") is a pretty good argument and the neg often answers it badly.

Case args: Obviously good. Affs tend to be terrible at answering these – if the 2AC drops something or makes a nonsensical answer, call them on it. Smart decisions here – like focusing on args that aren’t answered by the 1AC ev – will help your speaks.