Wilson,+Harris

Harris Wilson St. Mark’s Class of 2018 Updated for Novice Round Up April 2017

- link / overall strategy specificity is important - depth > breadth - clarity is important - I’m a so-called “policy hack” but that doesn’t mean I won’t listen to the K - prefer that you defend a plan - debate the case - have fun
 * Short version to read 2 minutes before the round**

Contrary to the proliferation of “you do you! I’m neutral!” judge philosophies in recent years, I’m going to be up front that there are certain arguments that I prefer over others and certain arguments that I view with more skepticism. This is not to say that you “have to debate like I’d like you to” or that I won’t vote for you if you end up running arguments that aren’t my favorite. Debate is an awesome activity that I care a lot about, so I’ll try to evaluate your rounds as fairly and neutrally as possible, but I think that it’s probably impossible to be completely neutral and impartial especially considering how much our immediate environment in debate shapes how we learn and grow in the activity. I debate for St. Mark’s. A lot of your preconceptions about the implications of where I debate are probably accurate. I’ve always been pretty “policy oriented”. Sophomore year, I went for politics in over a third of my neg rounds. I’ve always gone for framework against affs without a plan and can count the number of times on one hand that I read a K in the 1NC this year. (I’ve gone for the K twice in my debate career, both times the security k). I’d like to think that all of what I’ve described doesn’t make me a neocon and I’m still down to clown with the K, but the point is I’ve had a lot more experience with policy arguments.
 * Long version**

My favorite debates and the ones you will be rewarded most for are __specific__ debates with a high amount of clash. I realize that this is not always possible, as the topic selection committee apparently is entirely comprised of heartless 2As and being neg on this topic is absurdly difficult, but there are still a ton of things you can do to engage with the aff. Engage the case robustly (beyond reading old tired impact defense cards). Dismantle the internal links. My favorite 2NCs to give have been ones where I take 6+ minutes of the case because, let’s face it, a lot of affs are bad. Being able to point that out will go a long way, both in raising your chances to win the round and in your speaker points at the end of the debate.

Specific arguments: Disads: - awesome – the ones I’ve gone for most this year are: Elections, Appeasement, Xi Politics, and the Tillerson confirmation DA that was floating around in like January - specific disads to the aff are great but on this topic a lot of the core generics are good too – I often find that my evaluation of how good a disad is is based off of the link magnitude / strength of the link to the aff. If your appeasement impact is huge but the aff is healthcare cooperation and you are reading generic engagement links, you’re going to find it quite difficult to win - make sure to make smart “disad turns case” arguments that are along the strain of “our internal link turns their internal link because” instead of “our impact turns their impact because”. If you’re going for the TPP disad, “the tpp turns warming – key to diffusion of green technology and spurring international warming cooperation” is much, much better than “nuclear war causes global warming through environmental destruction” – because the latter relies on you winning a huge risk of the disad impact, but the latter just means you have to win the internal link and also lowers the threshold you’ll have to debate the case in the 2nr - politics is fine but given the current state of affairs I have yet to see a very good politics da all year

Counterplans: - advantage CPs are great because a lot of affs do not have a very good US-China engagement warrant - I’m not the *best* judge for counterplans that can result in the aff (including process, conditions, consult, etc) – because I think the aff’s theoretical objections and perms are more on the side of truth, and am unconvinced that there’s a real impact to severing out of certainty and immediacy to test counterplan competition - to reconcile the above point, I think the best standard for counterplan legitimacy and competition should be the specificity of the neg’s solvency advocate. If the neg has a very specific solvency advocate to both the counterplan’s process AND the plan, then it’s much easier to convince me that the CP is legit because there exists sufficient literature that recognizes the counterplan as an opportunity cost to the aff. - I default to judge kick unless the aff makes arguments otherwise. Then it’s up for debate

Kritiks: - like I said above, specificity is key – if you can’t explain a coherent link to the aff in your speech or in cross ex, it’s not going to go well for you - I’m a sucker for aff plan focus arguments partly because that’s usually the framework argument I’ve made in aff rounds but also because it seems tough for the affirmative to have to defend every single unprovable assumption that some of their evidence could share. That said, I also think that Ks that test a pretty central claim to the 1ac are legitimate (i.e. if the 1ac is an 8 minute trade aff, the neolib k should definitely be a consideration) - k tricks are the 2n’s best friend and the 2a’s worst nightmare. The reassuring thing is that if the 1ar makes sure to answer them all, it’s usually not a problem. - I have defended an alt that was basically framework before (with the security k) – so if that’s what you want to do, go for it

Case debating: - please - impact turns can be good in a pinch – my first bid this year was a 3-0 on dedev – so that can be fun - a lot of stuff has changed since The Donald took office – exploit that

Topicality: - not a huge fan because pretty much every interp on this topic is arbitrary as hell - debate it like a disad + case debate – win your offense, beat the internal link to theirs, etc

No plan affs: - not a huge fan. Would prefer that you defend a plan - if you must, try to win substantial defense against a lot of their impacts because many of them aren’t very good or intrinsic to their interpretation - fairness is an impact. If you don’t believe me, read DHeidt’s philosophy on tabroom and if you disagree with him after that, I can’t help you

Theory: - i'm kind of a sucker for condo. while i'm a 2n and think that 1 k and 1 cp is legit and anything more is questionable, i'm totally down to go for condo when i'm aff against 1 k and 1 cp - anything else is a reason to reject the argument not the team - i explained what i think about cp theory above. aspec sounds like a nice 26 to me

If you have any other questions, just ask! Good luck and have fun!