AlecOpperman

New School University Experience - Debated for 3 years, now 3rd year judging.

Oh hai. I like kritiks. I like to be an objective judge and will vote on a lot of things that i disagree with, but I really hate myself for it. If your answer to kritiks is framework and theory, please strike me. If you run out of strikes, you should probably learn how to answer the substantive arguments of a kritik to win the round. If your answer to kritiks is a substantial defense of your methodology (util good/ consequentialism good/policy making good), or even better - an actual response - then I might be a pretty good judge for you, and you can save your strikes for now.

Other general stylistic preferences: Big picture over line-by-line A few well articulated stories then 20 blippy arguments Smart arguments over bad cards


 * Policy Debaters:** Don't be too scared, I probably have a higher threshold for explaining a kritik against you considering most "K" debaters were handed a back-file they don't understand and pronounce it "Zee-zek." Link turns and offense on the alternative will be your best friend. That being said, I love a policy option that is not inherently imperialist/islamophobic/etc. Chances are, you're lying about all of your cards so I'm going to give as much weight to "Newt Gingrich is the zero-point of the holocaust" and "Consult Gaga" as to "Canadian soft power key to avert nuclear war" and "Consult India"


 * Counterplans/DAs:** Never debated them - not opposed to them - probably don't understand the random theory associated with them. Consult CPs are pretty stupid and an evasion of real research and argumentation, but so are the rest of your nuke war scenarios.


 * Theory:** Sometimes theory debates are really great. Most of the time, they're just a nice way of telling me you refuse to engage the other team's arguments. I'd prefer if you told me why their K is wrong rather than telling me it kills aff offense. I probably am unfamiliar with your blippy theory arguments and you'll probably be reading 10 of them in about 5 seconds. This is probably bad for you and me. I'd rather you save the theory arguments for when there is legitimate abuse and the arg is articulated well.


 * Kritik Debaters:** I prefer warranted analysis to 20 "cap causes war" cards. I'm not going to vote on a K just because I'm a K hack. I think ethos is pretty important.

Knowledge bases I am very familiar with: Cap Queer Theory Feminism Spanos Heidegger on technology

Knowledge bases I'm sort of familiar with Frenchies (Derrida, Foucault, etc) The Ziz. Critical race stuff + Wilderson Deleuze


 * K on K Debate:** I don't have any predispositions for how K v K debates should be had. I think I have a "default" that will influence my decision if neither side frames what the purpose of the round is. That default is probably framed in traditional offense/defense/permutation terms. That being said, I think that frame of evaluating the debate is probably not well suited for two teams that don't defend fiat. Debaters should frame how I view evaluate the round, and why thats uniquely good for education/liberation. I'd probably be the most tabula rasa here then in other circumstance, I've meddled with alot of different lit bases that I honestly don't know where I stand.

I like when teams defend something. That seems to be my only burden for K affs, even if it means you only defend that "defending things is bad". Just be upfront about it, rather then making claims like "the aff wins because we start a discussion" and permuting any advocacy they ever make.As the great John "Rossita" Fowle once said, its really easy to "add their something to our nothing" and therefore mean the aff always win.


 * Framework:** I love good framework debates. I hate bad framework debates. For K affs, I will almost NEVER be persuaded that the aff steals neg ground, or kills clash. You're better off indicting the way they engage with politics/the world rather than going for standards. In other words, I'd rather you read 9 minutes of policy making good, roleplaying good, etc, then 9 minutes of OH NOES WE CAN NEVER DEBATE THEM.


 * Topicality:** Even if you drop it by the 2NR, I'll still hate you. Exceptions: legitimately non-topical policy options or a way to ensure links on the disad.


 * Speed:** Some more experienced judges can flow the most incomprehensible spreading. I am not one of them. I'm fine with spreading, but my standard of clarity is a little bit higher. Be sure to slow down for tags and speak **clearly.**


 * Cards:** Don't piss on my leg and tell me its rain. Don't read me a card that specifies that the fluid on my leg, is in fact, comprised of distilled rain water. I don't need a card to tell me what is blatantly true or false and neither should you. I will weigh un-carded arguments fairly generously as long as I am familiar enough with the arg to know you're not lying. Debate should be about what you know, not how many lonely nights you've spent in your dimly lit room cutting cards while listening to Bright Eyes.

Extra speaker points for anyone who integrates Big Lebowski quotes into their args (well).