Kauschinger,+Kevin

__**This Philosophy was prepared before 2016 CEDA Nationals March 25th - 29th**__

__**Debate Career**__

3 years in High School @ the Bronx School for Law Government and Justice 2 years in College @ Binghamton University Judged in the NYUDL, NJUDL, and Mid Hudson Regions

I haven't judged or watched a debate round since 2014. I feel like I don't think like a policy debate as much so don't assume I'll know certain things or think a certain a way. Of course in this debate round I will be tabula rasa, meaning I will look for dropped arguments, who's evidence is better, and who was more persuasive.

__**Quick stuff**__

Open C-x is okay as long as the partner doesn't take up all the time. Jumping: prep time ends when you pull out the jump drive, also the team thats grabbing the doc also needs to obtain the doc in a speedy fashion. Speed is okay I take off speaker points for rudeness Dropped arguments = conceded Kick out of arguments properly Evidence comparison is golden Give a good overview at the end of the round I like clash Persuasion: it's not just about the cards, but also about the way you argue and present them.

__**Debate Background**__

Most of my debate world has been around more policy oriented argumentation. I have ran an untopical aff for half a year so I have a shallow understanding of running an untopical aff. I've also debated in both the NYUDL and D8 so there have typically been more kritik oriented teams around me than policy.


 * __Overviews and the Tree's vs the Forest or Analysis vs Simplicity__**

For Kritik teams: I know a lot of kritik debaters give story oriented overviews, but I some structure in the sense that I need to here phrases like "onto the perm debate, they say x but.." and "I'll do the link story here", so that I know your responding to their arguments. With a lot of kritiks, there's usually a group of people who are in a structural violence as a result of... capitalism, anti-blackness, ect. Explain to me why it sucks for them, don't assume I believe or know why it sucks for them.

For Policy teams: Give me a good overview, give me a quick one or two sentences for why I will eventually vote for you. After that sentence, do your line by line work.


 * __Disads__**

Ev comparison is important especially on a politics debate. What's also important is explaining the probability for your link/link turn scenario vs there's. For example on a Politics Disad, why would republicans like the plan as opposed to not like the plan, in secret do republicans actually like the plan, do grassroots supporters not like the plan and their key to republicans. On a foreign relations disad, one could think in a similar fashion, does Venezuela not like the plan, do they want assistance secretly but front like they don't like the US for public support, does the regime in Venezuela need public support so they won't accept US aid? Give me impact calc. I typically vote for the impact with a quicker time frame than the team with a longer term impact, however I can be convinced that probability comes first.


 * __Counterplans__**

- States Cp: I'm okay with them, though I do believe the neg needs to prove the states can have some type of uniform action and that the states can all come together and agree on the aff.

- Courts/Congress/XO Cp's: I'm okay with them. As a neg ya'll should have Aspec in the 1nc with you're cp, I don't buy the arg that you don't need Aspec because the cp is just the xo and the aff is the Usfg. The aff might say we didn't specify in the plan text so we'll specify now. The neg could read Aspec in the block but that pushes the debate back, that's why I perfer Aspec to be in the 1nc.

- Cp's that require theory: I'm okay with these on face value, if the aff wins the theory debate, I won't vote for the cp. Some People say a team can win off a cp with a theory backfile every year. Maybe, but if they did run that cp every year then people should be prepared for those debates and have answers for that.


 * __Kritik's__**

For me to vote for a kritik I need one of two things to happen

- Impact o/w + why I should perfer you impact analysis to there's (if nuclear war is going to come quicker, why do I prefer the slower Kritik impact?, why is utilitarianism bad?) - Impact o/w + solve root cause of impacts. Give me a good analytical for why the root cause argument will cause nuclear war (for example, there's no evidence out there that says increased poverty rates will cause nuclear war, but you can make the argument that increased poverty rates causes instability which will cause nuclear war).

Against perms I want to hear persuasive reasoning as to not just why the perm isn't competitive but also why the aff or people in general are too entrenched in a certain mindset to prevent the perm from being able to solve.

On the aff I want to hear either some reason why you're impacts come first (prob because aff impacts almost always have a quicker time frame and the neg's K impacts have a low probability) or some reason why the Kritik isn't mutually exclusive (probably something like a perm with alt solvency and a net benefit to the perm that o/w the Kritik's impact).

I do not know what a counter perm is. You can explain it to me and I may vote for it, but I also might not vote for it.


 * __Topicality__**

I enjoy a good t debate. My default is to view t debates as competing interpretations however a team can convince me of other wise. I want to see the neg explain to me what the aff justifies by being untopical or close to untopical. It's also the negs job to say look at plan text in a vacuum. From both teams I want to see what affs/neg arguments are excluded, how its harder for the aff and neg to debate and what comes first (edu before fairness and visa verca).


 * __Theory__**

I also enjoy theory debates and with theory I also default to evaluating theory as competing interpretations however, again, a team can convince me of other wise. From both teams I want to see what debates will look like if were not allowed/allowed to do x (like run conditional args/not run conditional args, not have to specify agent/specify an agent, not be able to run pic's/be able to run pic's, ect). How will those debates be harder/easier and/or more educational/less educational.


 * __Apec/Ospec__**

There are a lot of people who don't like Aspec/Ospec. I personally don't hate it. My view of Aspec is that its a procedural argument, its like a t. In the case of the neg running Aspec, the aff plan text specifies the Usfg but nothing more. In the case of the neg running Ospec, the aff plan text specifies Courts/Congress/Executive or possibly something even more specific. Is that bad or is that good/okay. That's the debate to be had in Aspec/Ospec debates.


 * __Framework__**

Its okay, what persuades me on f/w is reasons why plan action is not just key to fairness and education, but also key to solve the issues of the performance aff, being reasons why topical action is key to a discussion which is key to determining good choices and understanding Cap/Blackness/Anthro/Fem/Ontology, ect better. What I mean is I need so good explanation of how the offense of framework implicates the Kritik aff.


 * __Performance/Advocacy Aff's__**

I'll vote for them. I've ran more straight up aff's than these types of affs. I think my explanation of Kritiks above will be helpful.


 * __Speed Reading Bad__**

I'm not saying I won't vote for this but I haven't really seen a good reason why we shouldn't speed read, especially when people can speed read. I'm not saying I will never vote for speed reading bad, but it's very unlikely.


 * __Rvi's__**

There dumb because the aff shouldn't win for being topical!