Duner,+Alex

Northwestern University '17 Woodward Academy '13 asduner@gmail.com [|alexduner.com]

Background
I am currently a freshman at Northwestern University studying journalism and computer science. I went to High School at Woodward Academy where I debated for four years. If you have any questions about the information that follows please email me or feel free to ask me before the round.

What constitutes a good argument?
//“I enjoy elegance, creativity, and intelligence. I don’t so much enjoy brute force, trickery, or obfuscation. If your argument requires the other team to drop something in order for you to win, I’ll probably think it’s stupid. If your argument requires the other team to be confused about something in order for you to win, I’ll probably think it’s stupid. On the other hand, if your argument engages with the other team at a fundamental level, I’ll probably think it’s good—even if it’s “weird” or counter-intuitive. If it’s creative, even better.”// —Bill Batterman

This quote sums up a lot about the type and style of debate that I find rewarding—it should be a substantive discussion of ideas and proposals between two teams. Debate is an educational activity and I value teams that engage in a thoughtful intellectual discussion on the merits of a policy proposal.

Here are a few generic tips on how to debate in front of me—

 * **Explanation**—Your job is to persuade me to vote for your position. If I do not understand your position or any of your individual arguments, I will likely not vote on it.
 * **Clarity over speed**—Continuing in the same vein as the above point, it is your job to effectively communicate your arguments to me. I will give your arguments more weight if I can understand both the tag and the card.
 * **Make logical arguments**—You don’t need evidence to make a smart analytic as long as you explain it well.
 * **Evidence is important**—One of the most important skills debate teaches is research. If an argument is conceded and well explained, evidence doesn’t matter. However, I do think that the quality of evidence can and should play a role in the decision and I will probably call for cards.

Here are some of my thoughts on specific arguments:

 * Disadvantages**— I like disadvantages, especially ones that are specific to the case. Affirmatives should contest the internal link more, as I think that that’s a weakness for most disads. I think that the politics disadvantage is stupid.


 * Counterplans**— Don’t read a stupid counterplan. Please. Read an actual policy proposal, not some inane Process CP with politics as a net benefit. I think that having a solvency advocate is a good test of the validity of a counterplan—and it needs to be a fairly specific one—especially if the counterplan does the plan.


 * Theory**— I am probably more aff-leaning on theory—most negative teams get away with way too much—but I can be persuaded otherwise. Make sure to explain why your argument is a voting issue, or I will default to rejecting the team. I am slightly more persuaded by education impacts than fairness impacts but I will vote on either. Here are a few of my thoughts on some theory issues:
 * **Conditionality**—Probably bad for debate. Ideally negative teams would be stuck with one unconditional option but that’s a bit utopian, so one K and one CP is probably okay, as long as there is no contradiction.
 * **Process CPs**—These are cheating and bad for debate as they do not logically disprove the plan should not be done. I will probably be a bit more willing to vote on one of these if they are specific to the plan and a major part of the academic debate on the issues. If it is a silly change in the political process so that you can get a link to the politics disad (see my thoughts above), the affirmative should go for theory. Process CPs are normally stupid and ridiculous.


 * Kritiks**— I’ll admit that I am not extremely well versed in the many annals of critical literature; however, that is not to say that I am clueless. My partner and I did go for the kritik a lot our senior year of high school. What that means is that you better explain your arguments well or I will probably not vote for you. I like criticisms of epistemology, methodology, and representations—along with case specific kritiks. The more specific, the better.


 * Topicality**— I default to reasonability in topicality debates. I am therefore also not a huge fan of topicality debates, unless there is a fairly reasonable case to be made for why the plan does not fall within the scope of the resolution—in which case, by all means, go for topicality.

Some other thoughts—

 * ** Presumption ** —does not always flow negative but rather towards the advocacy that represents the least change from the status quo. There is almost never “always a risk.”
 * ** Cross Examination ** —It’s important and I will listen to it. Please note that if I am doodling during cross-x I am not ignoring you—it is just an idiosyncratic habit.