Welker,+Alex

Experience: 3 years of Policy Debate at Centennial (ID) Contact info: alex.welker7@gmail.com Pronouns: He/Him or They/Them = = =__**Policy Paradigm**__= During my time in debate I was a pretty flexible debater on the negative but strictly read topical affirmatives. I flow on paper so give me pen time when you go between flows that would be very appreciated. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before round I swear that i do not bite.
 * __ Information about me __ **

- Do what you do best -I am one of those awful people that love framework and T debates if they are done well -I prefer topical affirmatives and/or a K aff that relates to the topic but the negative can do what they want -Please debate case you will win a lot more rounds if you do in front of me
 * __ Short Version __ **

= **__ Long Version __** =
 * Kritiks ** – For the most part i was pretty boring in my kritik experience in high school, i went for legalism almost every 2nr. My biggest pet peeve with people that run K's is that the alt explanation is exceedingly lacking, if I don't know what the alt does there is no way that i am going to vote for the K. i am also not well versed in critical literature so if you get up in front of me and start reading things like Lacan, Nietzsche, Preciado or any other really weird author don't expect me to know your literature base. I also am a fan of contextualized links to the aff beyond the generic "the state is bad", having these will make voting for the k a lot easier if i can see a clear link to the affirmative.


 * Framework ** – First and foremost framework is a VOTING ISSUE. Now since this is my favorite argument if you run this badly i will not be very happy. For the most part i am more persuaded by substantive as opposed to theoretical framework but will still vote for either. As with topicality to win you are going to have to get deeper into the impact debate than your generic fairness and education claims, only if you get to the upper level implications of framework will it be easy for me to vote on framework. I will see these debates through the offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise by the debaters in the round.


 * Kritikal Affs ** – I really would like to see topical affirmatives, but I will still evaluate critical affirmative positions. If your aff does not relate to the topic in any way, shape, or form there is very little chance that i will be voting aff. Also if your affirmative has no advocacy that will not do well in front of me either i would like to know what i am endorsing when i am voting aff. In these rounds affirmative framework is going to very important in context of the role of the ballot or the judge in the round because unless otherwise stated i view rounds through a policy maker paradigm.


 * Topicality ** (Not Framework) – I also am a big fan of T debates especially on the China topic. I will only vote for Topicality if you can go beyond the education and fairness claims made in the standards debate and expand on the bigger impacts such as research burden, loss of advocacy, destroys debate if the aff always wins, ect. if you do not get to the upper level impact claims of T i will not vote for you. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise


 * Disads ** – They are a great strategic option if there is good link evidence and better impact explanation than "econ collapse leads to nuclear war". Case specific strategies will go very far in front of me


 * Counterplans ** – I have no real problems with cp's. I go by the philosophy that you can run the most abusive and cheating counter plan ever as long as the aff doesn't call you out.


 * Theory ** – I default to reject the argument not the team unless you are reading Condo bad.


 * Case ** – Any good negative strategy should include case debate, a lot of the time affirmative teams like to make grandiose claims about all the impacts that they apparently solve when in reality it doesn't make a lot of sense so please call them out. I am also a fan of embedding offcase on case to make those 2A's have to do actual case work.

__Miscellaneous Feelings about Debate__
I have compiled a list of thoughts I have about debate that seem to be in the minority


 * 1. ** __Fiat is not real arguments:__ If you go for the antonio 95 or the Schlag 03 cards in front me you will not win many rounds. I already presume that fiat isn't real and vote on whether or not the aff is a good idea or not and fiat does not preclude that. I see this argument more as a cool FYI as opposed to an actual round winning argument.


 * 2. ** __Judge Intervention:__ I will not read your cards for you and make arguments for either side of the debate, i find it deeply troubling that many rounds that i have lost have been because the judge has read either teams evidence and made the connections for them. I will vote based on what YOU SAY! THis is not to say though that i will read your evidence and give you comments on them if you so ask.


 * 3. ** __Speaking for others:__ I find these arguments more persuasive than most people. For example if you are two white people running wilderson you better know the literature base through and through. If you run an identity politics k that you don't identity with and are not well versed in the literature do so at your own risk.

__Speaking TIps__
- Clarity > Speed always -SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES, PLEASE

- If you want extra speaker points, be funny. - But if you try to be funny and fail, you will lose speaker points - im a big fan of calm sass in CX

=__LD Paradigm__=
 * General Overview:** I usually do not judge LD but since i am entered to judge this event at Central Valley this is how i will view the debates i will watch. Overall the way i view debates is not much different than policy but i feel that affirmative theory is much more justified in this activity as opposed to policy debate.


 * Value/Criterion:** While i do evaluate the v/c debate i do not really think it is round winning unless you can prove that either the aff or neg does not meet their own value or criterion or that they are contradictory.


 * Theory:** although I am not very versed in LD theory as long as you have an interpretation and standards for why i should prefer your interpretation you should be fine. Although i think that affs that almost nothing but theory are highly abusive but will only vote on that if effectively forwarded by the negative.


 * Progressive LD:** I am all for doing policy-esque arguments and i don't think that reading a plan on the aff or reading a cp and da on the negative is bad for either debater to do, although i will still be fine if you want read traditional arguments. Do not make yourself run progressive arguments just because i am ok with them, do what you do best. If want my views on things like K's, CP's and such look in the policy paradigm section


 * Framework:** I really like framework debates and much like in policy i am looking for more than just your typical limits and education arguments as reasons to prefer your framework. I am most persuaded by substantive framework but with the caveat being i am not very versed in things like kant or rawls so it would be best to have more explanation of what their philosophy is so i understand what you are talking about.


 * Speed:** I am perfectly fine with speed just so long as you are clear