Wang,+Bryant


 * __Background Info__:**
 * School: ** The Westminster Schools
 * Speaking Position ** : I am currently 2A pls b0ss

__ **General** __** : ** I'm open to every type of argument. No plan AFF, plan AFF, etc. Do whatever you want. Recognize that I believe debate is a persuasive activity, and tend to not be a big fan of teams that just read blocks. I default to tech over truth on most questions. A dropped argument is //__mostly__// a true argument. If it's incredibly illogical, then the other team can come back from it by making smart cross-applications and usually dropped arguments aren't always devastating (unless of course you drop a devastating argument). The 2nr/2ar shouldn't just point out "x" argument is dropped but explain how that implicates the meta-level framing of a large issue. I will not express how i'm feeling as i'm listening to a speech. I don't think I am strictly policy nor strictly K, thought I am more policy leaning...but, I have gone for 1 off K strategies before and I have read a no plan AFF before. Do what you are best at doing (within certain parameters of course)


 * __Case__: ** Case defense should be in the 2nr if you're going for a disad without a CP. The 2ar shouldn't freak out about the neg dropping an impact to their advantage when the neg is destroying them on internal link defense to that advantage. Cards are important in case debates - attack the AFF's weak points and read a ton of cards with different warrants to beat those weak portions of advantages. Neg speeches that destroy the case will receive high speaker points.


 * __Advantage CP__: ** The advantage CP and impact turned other advantage strat is devastating if done right. That being said, most advantage CPs are massive multiplank CPs and the AFF should try and read disads to individual planks (also make sure you ask them if they can kick planks, if they say yes condo is very viable). In terms of solvency deficits, the AFF has to impact the solvency deficit and tell me why it matters. Amorphous solvency deficits with no impacts are annoying and make me do more work than I like to. If they are not impacted, then good neg framing is persuasive.I am not as willing to vote on dropped perms if they are totally incoherent and make zero sense. If they are dropped and the 1ar/2ar explain them in a somewhat logical sense then I will vote for them.

**__Cheating CP__:** I have gone for these in the past a decent amount. They are susceptible to theory and the perm, however a very teched out neg response can often win these debates. But then again, I am AFF leaning when theory/perm is debated well.


 * __DA__: ** Impact calculus is important but don't get too carried away with impact analysis if you are getting crushed on internal link/uq defense. If the neg concedes the uniq debate on politics, the aff just has to explain to me why that means their is no longer a risk of the disad, and that should be sufficient for me. Without a concession however, there is almost always a risk. That being said, the aff has many options to drastically reduce the risk of a DA. If the aff solves the impact to the disad, and the negative doesnt explain to me why the disad means thats not true, whether that be from timeframe analysis, or telling me that it is an internal link turn to the case, it will substantially mitigate the risk of the DA.


 * __Impact/internal link turns__: ** I have gone for this strategy a lot. Stim bad, Heg bad, CO2 Ag good, Water Wars good, Multilat bad, Prolif good, WTO collapse good, IPR bad, Dedev, etc. I'm well versed in these arguments and go for them with regularity (check my wiki). A well executed impact turn is a great way to get awesome speaks in front of me. A poorly executed impact turn debate is a good way to get terrible speaks from me (because I am more susceptible to pointing out all the things you did incorrectly). If you are going for a dumb impact turn, like radiation good/china war good/wipeout, your going to have to spend a LOT of time here and do some extremely good explanation.


 * __Kritik__: ** I have also gone for this strategy quite a bit, but I //hate// poorly executed K debates. If you don't think you can execute well on the K, then don't do it. If you aren't good at these debates then I would prefer to listen to any other strategy. The one exception is I don't like Baudrillard or death good Ks. (fear of death kritiks are different). I will hold the neg to a high threshold of explanation when going for the K, so don't just assume i understand how your alternatives solves everything just because you tell me it does.This being said, if the aff undercovers/messes up a kritik, and drops K tricks I will vote here (but if you are bad at explaining/extending the K then you will receive low points). K debates tend to be really good or really bad.


 * __Topicality__: ** Be topical. The neg should do extensive interpretation extension, and explain why your interp is relatively better than theirs. In order to vote on T, i need to have an explanation of the negs impacts, just saying "the aff explodes limits, that kills fairness" is not sufficient. You should provide me specific examples of how the aff's interpretation explodes limits, and explain why limits explosion is bad, or if your going for ground, why the ground you lose is good ground. I default to competing interpretations, and have learned that many aff teams answer T terribly. As the affirmative, you better have offense on T, unless you are going for the we meet/reasonability strategy. If you are going for we meet, you should probably extend reasonability or I'll vote on minute/contrived distinctions that the neg extends. The neg will have to clearly explain the link to their impacts on T if they want to win them. If its not abundantly clear from the above, i judge T debates in the exact same way i judge disads (i.e. offense-defense by default, unless somebody in the round tells me not to).

__ **K AFF** __** : **
 * No plan ** : be ready for a framework debate and be technical here; don't just try to win on pathos appeal alone (but you definitely need alot of pathos appeal). You should have a coherent answer to "no topical version of your AFF" and the limits arguments, plus the litany of other framework arguments. I am NEG leaning on framework but can be convinced otherwise (note: I have gone for framework every time I debated a no-plan AFF except maybe once? but I have also read a no plan AFF before so...)
 * Has plan ** : defend the plan (don't be shifty or bad things will happen). have very well thought out structural violence o/w extinction/util answers, reduce the probability of the DAs because most are dumb; I find myself way more susceptible to voting AFF in these debates when the AFF is winning alot of the Sunstein-type probability arguments, no war args, and kritiks of DAs like (predictions K/complexity, specific kritiks of the DA's impacts like Pan, etc)

**__Theory__:** **Condo:** More than 2 is probably illegitimate. 2 and under are probably legitimate (can be convinced otherwise). I prefer debates which treat conditionality as a debate argument, i.e. set up your link, your impacts, and do comparative impact calc as to why your impact to why condo is bad outweighs their reasons why conditionality is good. 1 condo = voting issue is an uphill battle (unless you drop this) **Severance/Intrinsicness:** Severance/Intrinsic perms are a reason to reject the argument not the team.
 * Politics theory ** : debate this out in round and whoever makes a more persuasive case wins.

I copied the judge philosophies of Anshuman Parikh.