Levin,+Jason

GBN '16 Northwestern '20 jason.2898.levin@gmail.com

Top Level: - tech almost always over truth. I'm very willing to vote on something that I think is silly or untrue if debated well. - evidence matters but only as much as the debaters make it matter---if you have better cards, point that out and impact it and you will be rewarded. The less the final rebuttals discuss evidence, the less likely I am to care about its quality. - things I refuse to vote on: racism good, sexism good, death good, etc. I didn't feel the need to list every argument I find objectionable---you know who you are - debate should be fun: if you look like you’re having fun and try to make it more fun for other people, you will be rewarded. If you do the opposite, it will hurt your speaker points. - I have ideological predispositions, but those can be easily overcome if you explain your argument. - I don’t know much about the china topic so explain technical terms as much as you can

K: __neg __ - you can read and go for the k in front of me but be warned that I have a pretty low understanding of these styles of arguments relative to cps and das - I’m much more familiar with args like neolib and security than identity critiques so as you trend more in that direction, the burden for explanation rises accordingly - the more specific the better---the 2nr that starts with “they conceded fiat illusory” and explains the kaeppler card for 2 minutes is going to have a much lower chance of winning than the 2nr that spends that time explaining what’s wrong with the assumptions of the aff __aff __ <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- i personally believe the aff should read a plan. I can be convinced otherwise, but it will be hard to do so and I will likely hold aff presses against fw to a higher degree of scrutiny than the neg’s limits and fairness claims

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">T: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I judged a few debates at camp, went for this a good amount in high school <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I generally think competing interpretations are good and whoever has a better vision for the topic should win

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I tend to lean neg on most theory questions, and generally think going for theory in the 2ar is a hail mary strategy unless the neg drastically undercovers it

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">CP: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- specific pics are the best---execute a good strategy properly and your speaks will be greatly rewarded <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- process cps: I’ll vote on these if you win them, but if you can avoid it, you should <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- everything else is probably fair game

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">DA: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- love all kinds of das, will vote on it if executed properly