Anderson,+Maxwell+(Max)

What is up? My name is Maxwell Anderson, and I debated for Millard South for 3 years. I now debate for the University of North Texas

My senior year I earned 3 bids to the TOC (KCKCC, Westside, and Berkley)

Senior year national circuit stats: Caucus: Quarters KCKCC: Champions Westside: Finals Blake: Dubs Berkley: Sems Dowling: Dubs

Champions of many local tournaments, as well as state champions.


 * Top 4 Favorite judges in high school: **


 * David G. Gobberdiel **
 * Mike Baxter-Kauf **
 * Matt Kenyon **
 * Chris Stinson **

My high school career was mainly running the K, most notably talking about structural violence, we ran it on the aff and the neg, and never had a plan text.

Specifics:

*I think if it’s a “stupid/bad argument” it shouldn’t be that hard to beat. However you should still put some ink on that flow, because if you undercover it the neg could exploit it, hardcore.


 * __ Framework __** : While I debated against and beat framework a lot I honestly think it has a place in the debate community. In order to win framework in front of me you have to win __some__ of the following arguments: Prove the violation, topical version of the aff, standards outweigh, theory comes first, etc. I’m not afraid to vote down a K team if you honestly win the framework debate, this also means, that because I debated __against__ framework all the time I have a high expectations on how to answer it. You have to obviously win the opposite of the arguments listed above, or at least have some good defense. If the neg just kicks framework in the 2NR and doesn’t extend any defense, I feel the aff has all the right to exploit that and go for framework offense in the 2AR.

__**Topicality**__**:** Yes. I went for T quite a bit, simply put just make sure you answer the affs answer, I find that many T debates are one-sided with no real clash. I default to competing interpretations, but if there is a different frame you feel I should view the debate through, like reasonability, let me know and explain why that is the best frame to view the debate through.


 * __ Theory __** : I find these debates intriguing, fun to watch, and fun to evaluate. To me any theory argument can be legit as long as the standards are warranted and weighed effectively. I am less likely to buy silly theory arguments that are more or less obviously a troll (i.e. The aff must specify the material their clothes are made out of). On my local circuit I liked to troll and went for and won on Aspec quite a bit, so as lame as it sounds I am not opposed to voting for Aspec. I will say I am less likely to buy the simple Elmore shell, and more likely to buy the Komesar and Heminway cards.

As for condo, I feel the neg has the ability to answer the aff on two levels: The policy level (CPs, etc), and the kritikal level (Ks, etc). However, I can be persuaded by anything, if the aff really invests in the condo debate and goes for it in the 2AR I will vote for it.

Theory Subsections: A – Politics Disads: I find some of the theory arguments that come along with the politics disad quite silly, but if it’s completely conceded then I would vote for it.

B – Counter-plans: Whether it’s process CPs bad, PICs, bad or anything in between I find a lot debates could be won or lost on these types of arguments, especially if the neg miss handles it and the 1AR exploits it. I usually don’t find these arguments reasons to reject the team unless the neg completely concedes it and never says that phrase.

C – Kritiks: 1 – PIKs: I find these debates interesting especially when the kritik becomes a floating PIK in the block. If the 1AR misses this it usually is devastating for the affirmative. I think they are strategic for the neg, yet if the aff wants to throw down on this debate I could see them as abusive. 2 – Framework: I usually find when the aff reads the “Must defend a competitive policy option or status quo” very unconvincing, yet I realize it has an attractive time trade-off, because neg blocks to framework are usually very substantial, especially the one-off kritiks. I feel the neg can say whatever they want to the aff as long as it’s competitive and if it isn’t then just perm it and get it over with.


 * __ Kritiks __** : Love them. I would say I am the most familiar with this type of argument. They add a lot of diversity to the community, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of their arguments. NOTE: If you are reading D&G, please explain it well, they have become quite a huge craze in the debate community and a lot of people try to read them and end up failing epically. Not to mention there are quite a few variations of their arguments so just make sure to tie down the specifics of your argument.

Common kritiks I went for a lot include: Structural violence Give the Land Back Spanos Bataille

* You must win a link and impact. * In the one-off K debates I find the line-by-line becoming less important and the meta-level debate becoming the main focus, therefore it’s up to the aff to recognize this early in the debate.


 * __ Disads __** : While I personally only went for one disad my senior year I still enjoy a good disad/case debate. Because of this, this is one of the areas I lack in knowledge, so if you’re going for a disad, just make the link(s) and internal link(s) are very clear.


 * __ Counter-Plans __** – Perfectly fine, just win they solve the aff or a specific advantage.

FOR THE AFF:


 * __ Plan text or no plan text? __** : I didn't have a plan text my junior or senior year. If you are reading an author who would disagree with use of the state, then don’t read a USFG plan text, while I will not vote you down instantly, if the neg calls you out I will be sympathetic to their argument(s) and more than likely agree with them.

*If you don’t have a plan text or an advocacy statement, and a role of the ballot instead make sure you justify it, if you’re doing it just for the fun of it, I’ll probably be sympathetic to the negs framework argument.