Skenderi,+Victor


 * Short Judge Philosophy**
 * -** I am currently a sophomore at harvard. I no longer debate; however, I used to debate at Pace Academy and was a 2n with my partner Jordan Epstein. I would prefer to listen to a DA (especially politics)/CP/Impact Turn Debate. I am not a big fan of the Kritik but if you win it I will vote on it and tend to vote on it more than I would like to. That being said if you are torn between the K and a policy strat, you may be better served to go for the policy strategy. On theory, I'm fine with anything I will just default to the team that out debates the other here. I prefer to have recommendation/international/consult cps that have specific evidence with some semblance of a solvency advocate. I think conditionality is fine when not overboard i.e. more than 2 is pushing it and the aff will have a stronger conditionality argument. On topicality I think that whoever presents the best topic should win; however, if you read a mainstream affirmative reasonability is a strong argument in front of me. Stylistically I prefer clarity over speed if I can't understand you then I probably won't be flowing down everything you say so take that as you will.


 * Long Judge Philosophy**
 * General Overview-** I often go for the Politics Disad and Impact Turn strategy in highschool. I will vote for the arguments that a team wins over questions of truth i.e. I believe in tech over truth. If you want to better understand my judge philosophy you can look at some of my favorite coaches/judges: Kirk Gibson, Cat Duffy, Shunta Jordan, and Bill Batterman.


 * Case-** I love a good case debate. I think the quickest way for the negative to win a debate can be achieved through a devastating case debate and the same goes for the affirmative in terms of defending their aff well. In front of me good impact defense is just as good as good internal link defense.


 * CPs-** CPs are also another great way to win a debate. I think one great underutilized strategy on the topic is going for an advantage CP and either an impact turn or politics as the net benefit especially on the space topic where the internal links can be a little farfetched to say the least. Despite that in terms of CPs that result in the aff I tend to lean more affirmative. In terms of Agent CPs I'm fine with them but there needs to be a lot of time spent by the negative on questions of the permutation do the CP as I don't see them very competitive unless the affirmative just spots you an agent (If your aff don't do this). That being said Agent CPs are kind of horrible on this topic there isn't a good courts CP and in my opinion its nearly impossible to win a good net benefit to XO- it most likely links to politics. I think Consult and Condition CPs also have a big problem with questions of competition, considering that the affirmative usually doesn't specify the mandate of the plan and the idea that the CP results in the entirety of the aff is a reason that permutation do the cp is justified. the same goes for Recommendation CPs; however, I think that the negative needs to have some semblance of a solvency advocate. If your going for this type of counterplan or your against it make sure you define what a solvency advocate is because that could sway a theory decision for me.


 * DAs-** I think there is rarely ever zero risk of a disad that being said the affirmative can definitely minimize it drastically. I think the negative is well served to spend a good amount of time at the top of either the 2nc or 1nr and explain how the disad outweighs and turns the case. the affirmative needs to make sure these arguments get answered in the 1ar. I love the politics Disad especially if the disad is good that week, but I think the negative can get themselves out of poor uniqueness by framing the debate in terms of the link shaping the direction of uniqueness type arguments. Tradeoff DAs are usually horrible but if you have the goods in terms of link evidence that makes a tradeoff argument then its definitely a 2nr option. Case specific DAs are awesome although considering the topic and the way its unfolded there aren't many out there.


 * Dropped arguments-** They are true. I think if an argument is dropped it should be extended shortly and impacted in the overall effect of the flow. For example, I am fine with a 1AR on a DA can be short if they drop something devastating but I would recommend you extend a couple other defensive arguments in case the negative strategically utilizes other arguments on the flow are frames the flow/debate impeccably. A smart negative or affirmative team will recover by utilizing other arguments on the flow to answer these and I think if you find yourself in this position it might help to use more of your prep time to think of ways to recover.


 * Impact/ Internal Link Turns-** One of my favorite strategies ever. If you look at my wiki you will see that a fair amount of my 2ncs and many 2nrs consist of impact turns. Although I love impact turns, if you are going for a more farfetched or shotty impact turn, like middle east war good or indo-pak war good, make sure you spend more time there explaining the arguments and the plausibility of the turns. With these you also need to win more impact defense than you would with a heg bed, china growth, or prolif debate. Internal Link turns are even more awesome because affs usually don't answer them well or confuse them for impact turns.

-I'm not one for the death good K or neitzche although if the aff messes up or you think doesn't cover it properly don't hesitate to take it in the block just explain your reasoning for taking it. I'll most likely agree with you if they undercover.
 * K's- See Kirk Gibson:** Given the option, I would choose a DA/Case debate. That said, I'm familiar with a lot of the literature surrounding critiques of IR and policy scholarship. I'm less familiar with others. If you are going for a K, time needs to be spent on the role of the ballot and the alternative, how it is achievable and is a better option than a world than one where the USFG does the plan.

-Poltics theory- Neg if the aff team makes multiple interpretation of fiat, such as fiat solves the link and vote no, a theory argument there can possibly get you a ballot if either unanswered or not handled well.
 * Theory-** Conditionality can be a good aff strategy if the negative reads more than 2 conditional options. If they read less then 2 I think the aff will have a difficult time dealing with reasonability and defensive arguments, making me lean to only a risk of neg offense. You need interpretations in theory, not jsut for conditionality but a good counter-interpretation can get aff teams out of horribly abusive CPs as well. More on theory questions of CPs is under the CP section. I usually default to tech over anything else on theory debates- so just makes sure you cover everything and explain your offense well too.

-Beyond that I think if you run a mainstream and predictable aff like SPS you have a very compelling reasonability argument going for you and you should spend a lot of time there if the neg goes for topicality.
 * Topicality-** See Shunta Jordan: As a judge, I am always willing to pull the trigger on topicality. However, teams lose credibility with 15-second blip answers with no explanation as to why their interpretations are comparably better. I tend to believe topicality is about competing interpretations. As a result, I tend to like argumentation that persuades me of such. I hate whiny abuse standards and independent voters on topicality. Don’t waste my time with these arguments.


 * Speaks-** clarity over speed.


 * If you have more questions just ask me before the round.**