Arsht,+Ethan

RHSM '13 GWU '17 Out of debate since 2015.

3 years policy debate at RHSM. 1.5 years at George Washington.

I am open to any argument you want to read and I will do my best to evaluate each argument without biases. I like seeing that debaters are working hard, and I will work hard to make a good decision.

Big things

- Winning zero risk of offense is possible but difficult - People exaggerate the difference between critical debate and the rest of debate - I'm not the fastest when it comes to flowing (I HAVEN'T BEEN IN DEBATE FOR A WHILE SO THIS IS MORE TRUE THAN EVER). If you're incredibly quick, consider slowing down a bit, or taking a breath between quick analytic arguments.

Specific arguments

Topicality: I don't have a lot of feelings about this.Affirmative teams should have a reason why they bring unique education to the topic. Aff is in trouble if they drop competing interpretations good.

Disadvantages: Politics theory is really hard to win, even if it's dropped. Smart/true turns case arguments seem to win rounds pretty often.

CPs: Read them. Theory arguments other than conditionality bad are usually a reason to reject the team.

Critiques: Slow down. And then slow down more. Lots of people put their "familiarity" with Ks on their wiki, but I don't see why that's relevant. Just explain your argument and you'll be fine. Be careful about conflating analogy and argument. For example, saying "this is extremely dangers because it's the same logic that Bush used to invade Iraq" is NOT an argument. Saying, "Belief in American exceptionalism is extremely dangerous because it makes intervention permissible i.e. Bush invading Iraq" is an argument.

Critical affs: I've spent more time reading federal government affs, and I've had more success when I've read critical affs. If you made me choose, I would say the aff should defend the federal government. At the very least, affs should have some reason they're germane to the topic. That said, I am very hospitable to affs that avoid federal implementation if they have good reasons why their specific mode of education is precluded by discussing the desirability of a policy.

Other stuff - Make jokes. Most judges say that you should make jokes if you're funny. I am of the opinion that you should make jokes regardless of whether you're funny or not. Just give it your best shot. Worst case scenario you do something embarrassing, which will end up being kind of funny in retrospect anyway. - The goal of answering cross-x questions is NOT to try and make the person asking the question look as stupid as possible. Seriously, sometimes you can just answer the question, or say you don't think the question is relevant. - Don't ask me to "gut check." That will only determine whether I'm hungry or not. Instead, make the argument as to why they're claim is wrong, even if it's an "obvious" argument. - Make pop culture references. Hopefully I will get it. If not, see the worst case scenario above. - Be respectful. What is respectful is completely subjective, but if I decide you are being disrespectful it will be reflected in speaker points.