Soria,Jake

Gulliver Prep ‘16 Tufts University ‘20
 * Jake Soria **

Quick Notes: - I was a 2n in high school - Framing the Debate is Key – I’d rather decide a debate on the merits of one team’s narrative rather than minor differences in evidence quality - Please be clear – I’ll yell clear and noticeably annoyed if I can’t understand you - Go slow on long-winded tag-lines (! K-links) - I think the 1ar is the hardest speech in debate so tend to give it some leeway, but don’t think it’s a good idea to abuse that - Random: I really like affirmatives that use a topical plan and read deontological impact scenarios (think Bronx Science Katrina or Kinkaid JARC) – but be very prepared to defend your affirmatives use of the USFG - I know literally nothing about the topic

Include me on the email chain (jakeasoria@gmail.com)

Topicality: I think definitions are super cool – so, do what you want with that information.

Neg – please don’t hedge your bets on a nebulous violation. Make sure to have clear impacts to your interpretation. Make sure there is a clear violation, I tend to err aff on reasonability arguments. I really enjoy effects/extra T arguments if they are well developed.

Aff – please do not be blippy on T in the 2AC – Ex: “our aff is reasonable” = not an argument - and I will sympathize with negative teams that miss arguments.

Theory: Like topicality, theory must be well developed and impacted for me to be persuaded by it. That being said, some violations are more egregious than others – 3 conditional worlds is probably a good limit and international fiat, process/consult/conditions CPs are probably bad – but there are reasonable arguments from either side depending on context.

Case: well-thought out case turn debates are dope. I’m also a huge fan of impact defense. 2AC/1AR should be brief yet clear/warranted on the case debate – USE your 1AC.

Counterplans: Most generic counterplans are good. I love very specific counterplans, whether it’s in the form of a PIC, Process, Consult, or any counterplan. But most of these CPs end up being hyper generic – and are probably going to lose to the perm do the cp + theory strat. At least make process Cps topic-related to consider going for it.

Disadvantages: Impact framing often decides Disad debates. Aff – always make sure to read impact defense and fault logical flaws with the Disad. There can be zero risk of a DA. Most Politics scenarios/topic disads tend to be pretty dumb. Neg – I love a good turns the case/access your impact scenario. If it’s politics make sure you have good link evidence, and a legit impact scenario.

Kritiks: While I debated I wasn’t the biggest fan of the kritik, but now I "vibe" with it. I have a grasp on most IR-based/generic Ks, but winning with high theory or identity arguments is going to require some extra explation. If you go for a non-IR based Identity K – please identify with what you are critiquing.

For the aff – framework is very important – you’re going to lose if your framework is “no critique” or “we get to weigh the aff” – please define the focus of the debate and role of the ballot/judge. Have cards which substantiate the studies/methods used in the crafting of your aff, always make a perm and make sure it has clear net benefits. Answer each separate K-link/trick.

For the Neg – For high theory/race teams remember a lot of explanation throughout the debate – I REALLY want to be able to understand your arguments. Also I think rhetoric is really cool thing. Legit: Make sure to have a clearly articulated framework. I love link debates so make sure you 1. Contextualize the link to the affirmative, 2. Use it as leverage against framework and the perm 3. Use the link as defense against the affirmative. Explain clearly how the alternative functions –I don’t want to hear a “and once we stop using security logic against your aff it all goes away” – that’s bullshit.

K Affs: This is an area of debate which I am extremely opened to listening warranted explanations by both sides. In high school I was big on framework, but I’ve leveled out in my perspective on this issue since leaving the activity.

Neg – make sure to have a clear and impacted scenario on framework. I tend to think of framework more as a counter-methodology than a T argument (don’t be like “T not framework” – I’ll be annoyed). That being said, it’s probably the lamest counter-methodology you could have read (PICs are great against K affs). That being said Framework is a necessary, and sometimes very useful argument in debate. Tips - Have a role of the judge and the ballot. Be careful in considering why there is a topical version of the plan, or they can access their knowledge through topical ways. You can do it on the Neg is not good enough.

Aff –If you’re against a counter-narrative-strategy please utilize the perm. Always have a good defense of your rhetoric – I find K affs extremely susceptible to PICs. Be very clear about what your role of the ballot is and how I should evaluate the debate. These affs should be related to the topic – I’m not gonna be down to have a talk about our experience in the debate space kind of round. Please go beyond generic arguments about the United States federal government being bad – give me specifics about the things that they have done which are similar to what you’re critiquing.