Freedman,+Adam

Adam Freedman New Trier 08' Macalester College '12 2A

I debated 4 years at New Trier on the national circuit, and am now debating for my second year at Macalester College, in St. Paul, MN. Go as fast as you like, but if you become incomprehensible I will call you out on it. Don't let my philosophy influence your strat too much-I'm interested in hearing what you are used to running.


 * Kritiks**: I am not the biggest fan. I ran them occasionally in high school and run them often in college, but I have high burdens for the negative to win the K. In the 2NR you have to be really proving a specific link to the affirmative, explicitly laying out the groundwork for how you get to the impacts, and really showing me that your alternative solves for anything. In essence, if you don't understand your critique, and you can't isolate specific links and really delineate within the author's framework, I will know and you will likely not win the round. Granted, if you really understand the theory and have a good, strategic plan for running the argument, I would be glad to hear it, and if you win, I would be glad to vote for you.


 * Counterplans/DAs**: I ran a bunch of CPs and DAs in high school and run a few in college. On this front, I expect you to be doing clear delineations and impact calculus. If you want to read a sketchy pic, I am happy to listen to it. I have run the most run of the mill counterplans as well as the most abusive counterplans and am glad to hear them all, granted you can defend them.


 * Topicality**: I went for T a bunch in the block in high school, and I still am very interested in the argument. If the negative understands what they plan on running here, I am glad to listen to it. To vote on T, I expect the negative to provide specific IRA or win big on potential abuse. That said, I have a much lower threshold than most judges on topicality and really enjoy the debate, as long as there aren't 2 ships passing in the night.


 * Theory**: I have gone for a bunch of theory debates on both sides, and am glad to listen to most of the arguments. To get me to vote on theory you need to actually make analysis not explicitly written on your block and really engage the other team's arguments. If you aren't prepared to argue the intracacies of theory, don't bother going for it. That said, if there is an abuse story or if it goes dropped, I won't feel badly filling out the ballot with high speaks for whichever team wins the debate.


 * Performance/Non-traditional debate:** I am willing to listen to these arguments but I am not the judge you want. If you plan on reading these arguments in front of me, be prepared to defend your framework for the round and answering the policy/critical arguments of your opponent.