Sigalos,+Jason

I debated for Woodward for 4 years and am currently a Junior at Emory.

Updated as of the 2013 TOC

 I will list some of my preferences/thoughts below, but please understand these are just preferences/thoughts and will definitely be overcome by good debating. One—Theory: I have a lot of biases on theory (most aff leaning). Please slow down when reading theory blocks. I will tend to default to rejecting the argument, so please first explain to me why theory should be a voting issue if you are going for it. Some specific default settings are listed below: Conditionality—bad. Dispositionality—it’s just stupid. PICs—must be functionally and textually competitive. Intrinsicness—good. States CP—probably bad <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Two—Counterplans: I think CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive. I think process, consult, and agent counterplans are bad for debate/not competitive. I think PICs are probably bad, but I could be persuaded otherwise, especially if the PIC excludes a large portion of the affirmative. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">“You need a solvency advocate for your counterplan. What’s a solvency advocate? Different people might have different standards, but I think it’s reasonable to have one that’s comparable to the solvency advocate for the affirmative.” I agree with this and the rest of David Heidt’s rant about counterplans. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Three—Disadvantages: The link controls the direction of the disadvantage. I can be persuaded that uniqueness should come first. Something that I don’t understand is the “any risk” logic. If the disad turns and outweighs the case, but has no link, I won’t vote for it. The impact functions as the relevancy of the link. Turns case arguments are awesome, but once again do not substitute as a link. Absolute defense is possible. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Four—Critiques: I think the best way to attack the critique is the alternative. Consequently, negatives should preemptively explain to me what the alternative does and what it means to vote for the critique. Framework arguments that try to exclude critical theory from the debate curriculum are not persuasive to me. I'm familiar with quite a bit of critical literature yet there are vast areas that I don't understand. I dislike any vein of psychoanalytic theory. I do not understand it. If you can explain it to me please do so. If you can do it within a round then you have a chance at winning. I don’t really understand Heidegger. Arguments that death and suffering are good are probably dumb. Once again, I can be persuaded to vote for any critique, as long as I understand it. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Five—Topicality: I generally default to reasonability. The idea that the competing interpretations model has been around forever/is inevitable is false. Reasonability is persuasive because the role of the judge is not to decide the best model of the topic, it is to decide whether the plan is topical. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Six—Performance teams: I do think that debate should revolve around a topical plan/action. However, my opinions about this area of debate are constantly evolving, especially since the end of this years college topic. If you don't want to pref me because you are worried it will put you at a competitive disadvantage, that is a perfectly valid reason. However, if you do pref me, I promise I will be as engaged in the round as possible and try my very best to understand the arguments and render the best decision I can. While I do generally participate in policy oriented debate, this is an activity I care deeply about and will listen to any arguments for why it should improve. I won’t pretend to understand everything, but if the goal is to change the activity, then a good place to start would be by educating debaters/judge like me who love this activity and want to learn more. For the negative's debating these teams, if you have a strategy which actually interacts with the aff, I encourage you try it out. If you only have framework or you just love framework that is also ok. I am persuaded more by topicality arguments rather than framework arguments. Topicality is more along the lines of you have to defend the resolution/debating about the resolution is a good thing. Fairness is an impact in and of itself-but the negative still has to explain why <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Seven—Misc: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Presumption goes to less change, not necessarily the negative.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">It is the burden of the team advancing the argument to both explain their position and prove that it is correct. The affirmative needs to win their advantages; the negative needs to win their DA. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">I am very willing to grant absolute defense, especially if I feel an argument is silly.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Smart analytics = good. You don’t need evidence to make an argument.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Evidence v. Debating—if an argument is conceded and explained (or if one team is out-debating another), I won’t look to evidence. If arguments are well contested (at the margins), evidence is very important to me. Better evidence > more evidence. Evidence > spin. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Good luck to everyone, especially the seniors at this years TOC! Much Love y'all