Melookaran,+Jacob

Jacob Melookaran

Blue Valley West 2016

4 years at Blue Valley West
 * Debate Experience: **

- Tech outweighs truth: This means that a dropped argument is a true argument, however for it to be an argument it must actually have a warrant for it, I don’t want to hear a bunch of assertions. - I won’t hesitate to read evidence after the round but these comparisons should be resolved in the debate, it’s not the best when there is just a mess of cards in a doc and you are forced to intervene on your own extrapolation of the card - Clarity is important - Don't steal prep - Conditionality is almost always a good thing - Clipping=Loss & 0 speaks - Generally view things through an Offense/Defense paradigm because that's what makes sense to me - Don’t have much knowledge on the topic so don’t assume I know everything
 * General Stuff **

- Never a reverse voter - I will default to competing interpretations but I feel the debate can change my decision depending on how the round goes - Very persuaded by precision arguments and how they make the debate more predictable - Needs to be evidence comparison going on, I find that people abandon evidence because they think they don't need it in a T debate but having good evidence will make it easier to access your internal links and there is a debate to be had about the level of T - Need a Counter interpretation to have any offense
 * Topicality **

- Always a good idea - Debate usually comes down to impact comparison in the 2NR, turns case arguments should be explicitly clear and set up earlier in the debate
 * Disads **
 * - **** Usually went for DA’s in High School **

- Counterplan should be functionally and textually competitive, and that competition should be established in the 1NC - Not a huge fan of theory arguments on the CP (International Fiat bad, Consult CP's Bad), they’re usually not a reason to reject the team and probably not a reason to reject the CP but it definitely helps justify an intrinsic permutation - Probably need a solvency advocate for the counterplan, this includes PIC's - Will not vote on a Word PIC
 * Counterplans **

- Never really went for them in high school but that doesn't mean you can't go for them - Heavily persuaded by aff framework questions, this doesn't make it impossible to be neg and win on the K, just that the aff should be able to defend implementation vs the alt - Needs to be a clear explanation of the link and alt if they are poor its pretty easy for the aff to win a case outweighs argument - Haven't read a lot of literature so things like cross ex are pretty important at getting me to understand, I also don't want to hear words repeated from your blocks, I want to know you actually understand what is going on - Don't need to hear the 20 disads you have to the permutation, unless you are going to impact every single one out.
 * Kritiks **

- You should instrumentally defend topical action - You need an interpretation that proves there is equitable and predictable ground for the neg - Whether or not you make the debate unfair or unpredictable is a debate to be had and I am willing to vote either way
 * KAFFS **

- I am happy to vote on disclosure theory - Judge Kick is only a thing if it is in the speech, I will not kick the advocacy unless told to do so - Usually a reason to reject the argument, this means that you should never be going for a intrinsicness bad as your 2NR
 * Theory **