Rosenthal,+Zach


 * Zach Rosenthal **
 * Stanford University ‘13-’17 **
 * Kinkaid ‘09-’13 **

Update 1/16/16: i'm a chemist. if you somehow make a joke or comment relevant to that i will be impressed. update 1/16/16: i have heard wilderson almost every round on this topic. and i have voted for it quite a number of times. it's just starting to get kind of boring.

Update 1/13/16: I am now two years out of debate. Much of the below still stands -- ultimately, I enjoy critical arguments just as much as "policy" arguments; I enjoy thinking about framework, but I am more familiar with defending it than responding to it (i.e., more familiar with defending the neg claim that the aff must topically defend the rez). I am a very strong believer in the idea that if a team cannot beat "ridiculous" arguments (i.e. malthus, wipeout, etc.), then they should lose to them. Impress me in CX for high speaker points. I have a low/moderate topic familiarity this year (domestic surveillance), so affirmatives/neg positions may require more "background" explanations. I particularly love high-variance strategies.

My freshman, sophomore, and senior years I was the 1A/2N. I competed heavily on the national circuit. My junior year, I was both the 2A and 2N. I went for a wide range of arguments my junior and senior years, ranging from the politics DA to conditions CPs to the psychoanalysis K. I have read both policy and critical affirmatives.


 * The two most important things to note while debating in front of me: **

1. Evidence is not necessary to make arguments - most advantages/DAs can more than sufficiently be taken out by solely pointing out its logical flaws or by reading the un-underlined portions of the other team’s evidence. Of course, evidence is usually preferable - and when it’s in play, the debaters that usually win the arguments in question are the ones that explain the warrants of their evidence better or have reasons to prefer their ev (qualifications, recency, etc.). If your card’s really sick, that’s great, but if you don’t explain it then your good ev will go to waste. 2. Framing issues become extremely important in close debates, and tech > truth - what impacts are most important? Is it try or die? Which impacts control the escalation of other impacts? etc. Winning some of these issues frames how I view the rest of the debate - choose the one that you’re going to win, and frame the debate around it.


 * The most important things for speaker points: **

1. Be smart - make logical arguments grounded in historical examples. Again, you don’t need evidence to beat every argument. Take out a flow in CX or without evidence and I’ll be impressed.

2. Flexibility - if you’re a “K debater” and the other team basically drops the politics DA, assuming not-extraordinary circumstances you should have a much easier time winning by going for the politics DA than by going for the K. I really appreciate debaters who are flexible and are able to capitalize on the mistakes of their opponents. This isn’t to say I wouldn't appreciate a 1-off debate - I certainly would. But recognize where the 2AC messed up. Same for the aff - if the 2NR was bad on one advantage, then go all in on it.

3. CX should be used to reduce explanation during regular speeches. If you’ve already explained something in CX, then you probably don’t need to re-explain it again - if it was clear, just say “that was explained in CX,” and move on.

4. Strategies that demonstrate superior research or thought about an affirmative will be rewarded. In the context of Ks, while you might not have a K link to the specific plan mechanism, going through all of the 1AC evidence pointing out why they’re wrong will help accomplish this.

5. Versus teams less experienced or significantly worse than you, to get high speaker points the win must be decisive. Don’t be mean, but don’t go easy on them.

6. (Optional) Be funny. Humza Tariq really pulled this off well. Make fun of arguments. Making fun of your opponents or even me could go really well or really badly. There’s a risk - it’s hard to do well, but if you can do it while making arguments, then more power to you.

- zero risk is possible, but intrinsically hard to reach - you can use CX time to prep (might be necessary vs new affs) - CX is clearly important, but if you make the decision that it’s more important to prep then go ahead <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- presumption = to less change
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Misc important things: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- prep time should end once the flash drive is out of the computer. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- If your computer crashes, we can stop the debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Paperless specific - **


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Specific args (probably don't need to read this before a round but I'll put this here in case you want to know my thoughts about your sick consult CP...) **


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Case: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2As - DO NOT DROP CASE. A lot of 2As speed through case, often dropping args or not making warranted arguments - I’ll have a lot of sympathy then to a 2N that points this out, and then have a higher threshold for 1AR recovery. On the other hand, affs that decide to invest time explaining their advantages + thoroughly responding to the warrants in the neg’s ev will likely be ahead in the debate. For the neg - collapse down in the block, and then even more in the 2NR - instead of kind-of beating the aff on a few arguments (which then allows the 2AR to wax poetically and beat all of them), why don’t you just crush them on one or two args so that the 2AR can’t make a recovery?


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Theory/T: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Theory/T args frequently lack an impact – move beyond “voter for fairness and education” and impact your args with the reasons why debate is actually valuable. Impacts like advocacy skills/decisionmaking/info processing will be much more persuasive to me than things that can be solved by doing other things (like reading a book). I’ll assume that I should evaluate debates through competing interpretations, but I could definitely be convinced to view the round through reasonability. I liked to go for T in high school, but I usually would only go for the violations that I thought had a good literature base supporting them and truly had a meaningful differential in terms of limits or predictable ground.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">One thing to note - reject arg is presumed on theory arguments unless there’s a sufficient explanation about why the other team should lose. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Intrinsicness? I’m really agnostic - I’ve gone for it on the aff and argued against it on the neg - feel free to impress me though if you think you’ve got the goods.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Conditionality: on the neg, we’d usually have 2 conditional worlds. On the other hand, on the aff, we’d often go for 2 conditional advocacies bad. 1 K 1 CP seems reasonable to me, but while I could be convinced that 1 conditional option should be the limit, I could see myself letting the neg get away with 3 if the aff fails to adequately press the neg on the theory debate <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- PICs, if competitive (functionally and textually, preferably) and with a solvency advocate seem fair to me <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Conditions/consult CPs might be a bit much, but that might just be the 1A in me speaking. Although it’ll be harder to beat the aff on theory, you could definitely do it. I think a framing issue that’s like “if we win our CP is competitive, then opportunity cost should determine legitimacy” is a persuasive argument, and one that I went for whenever going for CPs like these. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Agent CPs: sure, if competitive. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- States: probably. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- International: not really sure. Maybe? On the space topic I went for the Russia CP quite a bit, but other than that I haven’t really had an in-depth international fiat bad debate. I could see myself being convinced either way.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- CPs/CP theory: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> See notes above for impacting theory.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- DAs: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Link > UQ in determining who wins net offense. Turns case args are important and should not be ignored – same with the aff and turning the DA. Zero risk is possible, especially with technical concessions. DAs should always be framed in terms of the rest of the debate – why does the risk of the DA outweigh the risk that the CP doesn’t solve?


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Kritiks **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">: I frequently went for K’s in high school – I think they’re an extremely strategic part of any 2N’s arsenal. I usually went for security/IR Ks, like the gender K, psychoanalysis K, and even just the generic security K, but occasionally I also read some other Ks - my favorite was an zizek interpassivity K/a K of debate we read versus K affs. Honestly, I’m really not particularly interested in any of this - the main reason why I went for the K so often was simply because a lot of aff teams had a hard time defending the assumptions behind their 1AC. My strategy would usually be to read like two or three cards in the entire 2NC, using the rest of the time for explanation.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">For both teams - framework questions can be really important - if I conclude that the aff’s apocalyptic warming representations are bad, but that the aff still solves warming, who wins? A lot of the times affirmatives will be in this situation, but not say a word on/really mishandle the framework debate, and then most likely lose the round.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">For the aff - you should WANT to be involved in a K debate - don't forget to utilize your 1ac.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Point out silly neg framework tricks. Answer epistemology/ontology/reps 1st claims by both defending your 1AC. RECOGNIZE where the neg’s links are the weakest and capitalize on it. Pin down exactly what their alternative does in CX - it’s usually where most K’s are weakest.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">On the neg: It’s really important for you to go through 1AC evidence and read out specific lines that you disagree with. Make your link arguments as specific as possible to the 1AC - usually the team that talks more about the aff will win. Going 1 off can be really strategic sometimes - I did this quite often my junior/senior years. If you do it, find a nice way to divide up the block. Diversify link arguments. If you have a link argument based off of identity formation that was dropped, then flag it as such an explain it. Silly framework tricks that avoid clash like “we only have to win one link to win” shouldn’t be the crux of your strategy, and make me much more sympathetic to affirmative framework claims.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Performance/alternative styles: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> How you choose to use your speech time is completely up to you - if you’re good at what you can do and win the arguments, then you’ll probably win the debate. Explanations of what specifically I’m voting for and why are necessary.

As Claire McKinney always said - have fun, be smart, and debate well.