Aitelli,+Alex

Debate experience: 4 years policy at College Prep; freshman at Cal Poly but not debating

General things: 1. For paperless teams, prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer. 2. Make arguments as to why your cards are better or your proposed policy option is better. I would rather not have to call for cards after the round to work out what happened unless it’s absolutely necessary. I will only call for cards that are relevant to what was extended in the final rebuttals. 3. Make choices. Pick the argument you’re most likely to win on and go for it. Also have a key issue that resolves the debate in your favor. Does the perm on the CP avoid the links to the net-benefits? Does the solvency deficit to the counterplan outweigh the net-benefits? Can the alternative to the criticism function simultaneously with the plan? 4. I won’t kick a CP for you in the 2NR unless you make the argument that I should. 5. I default to reject the argument unless you tell me to reject the team. 6. Clarity is //substantially// more important than speed. I’ll probably provide enough non-verbal signals that I’m no longer flowing if you’re unclear. Also slow down for theory if you want me to catch all your arguments.

Specific things: Aff: I’m really dislike performance affs. I would rather you strike me if you intend to read a performance aff. I would much rather listen to a straight-up policy aff than a critical aff. Topicality: Please do impact calculus. Not many people remember this. Also, make sure the violation is a good test of the aff. Cheap-shot T arguments aren’t fun to vote on. DAs: They’re my favorite argument. I would much rather see a disad debate than a kritik debate. I enjoy listening to the politics DA as well as case-specific DAs. Be sure to compare impacts and tell me which lens I should view impact through (i.e. reversibility, intervening actors, etc.). Also, does uniqueness control the direction of the link or vice-verse? CPs: I went for a process CP a lot but that probably doesn’t mean you should as well. Well-researched, case-specific CPs are usually better than a generic process CP that can be read every round, but I definitely see a process CP's strategic utility. In terms of conditionality, I think 1 K and 1 CP is okay, but I guess I can be convinced otherwise. I would rather not vote on theory, but if the neg makes it nearly impossible for the aff to debate, I’m fine with it. Your threshold for going for theory should be “we can’t beat the CP any other way.” Ks: They are some of the best debates and some of the worst debates. I almost never went for the K in high school, but I understand the strategic utility of the K. Specificity is better for these arguments. Don’t just shout out buzz-words; I would much rather you explain why your links/impacts are specific to the aff. I would much rather you explain the K in words that anyone can understand, and if you don’t understand the words and you’re just reading blocks it’s probably not a good idea to go for it in front of me. Other questions to consider include “can the alt solve/include the aff” and “does the alt problematize the aff, and if so, how?” Finally, if you have your pre-written 6-minute-long overview complete with every last cheap shot, //please// strike me!

Lastly, debate is about having fun, so if you’re not having fun I probably won’t be either and will be thinking about food instead of the debate.