Blais,+Ryan

School Affiliation: St. Vincent HS Experience: 4 years high school debate Currently: Freshman at UC Berkeley

In general, I'm willing to vote on just about any good argument that is debated persuasively. However, there are certain things that will be more difficult to persuade me of.

SPEED: I don't mind speed, but I need to understand you. I'm not the fastest flow, but I can probably keep up. Don't overkill it on the speed though, slow down and speed up strategically, and do not simply try to out read the other team.

TOPICALITY: It takes a lot for me to vote on topicality. To win topicality in front of me you will need to be clear about your definition and violation, and explain the kinds of cases that would and would not be allowed. If your interpretation only limits out the affirmative I will probably not be convinced. However, well-developed justifications for your interpretation, especially if they are more specific than your opponent's, will get you a long way. If you want to win topicality you will have to invest some time.

DISADS: Read what you want, but know that a well-reasoned internal link press will get the affirmative a good distance with me. Good impact calculus including explanations of how the impacts of the disad specifically interact with the case, short-circuit solvency, or turn the case are essential.

COUNTERPLANS: Again read what you want. However, I tend to believe that a combination of functional AND textual combination is best for CP debates. Convincing me otherwise is plenty possible, but it will require good reasons, not just any reasons.

KRITIKS: This is definitely my favorite kind of argument to listen to. However, you need to be clear in your explanation of every part of the kritik. I will likely not know/understand any jargon you use regarding you kritik, which means you better explain it to me in a simple manner; jargon without explanation is a losing strategy, and will especially be reflected in speaker points. I find examples to be especially helpful in explaining/understanding the kritik so take advantage on the neg AND the aff. I also want to see specific links and particular reasons the affirmative does whatever the link involves.

FRAMEWORK: I will default to policymaking if it is not brought up. When there is a framework debate it will be very difficult to convince me not to side with the middle ground. So if one team thinks kritik alternatives AND policies should be evaluated and explains how I should make that evaluation I will probably agree with that more inclusive interpretation. However, it is possible to convince me otherwise in certain circumstances.

Overall, if you explain a coherent line of thought as to why, how, and on which arguments I can/should vote for you it will go a long way. I don't want to think about the debate at the end, I want the answer to be obvious, so show me the easy way out.