Anderson,+Julian

Junior in high school, has been debating for Peninsula for 3 years Affiliation: Peninsula

General: I will vote on any argument, and be as objective as possible and attempt to keep my own biases out of debate. At the end of the debate, I will make two ballots and choose the one that is most persuasive to me. An argument requires a claim, warrant, and evidence to be considered. Partial arguments are not arguments. I am mostly used to reading policy and/or soft left arguments, and I am most comfortable with that kind of debate.

Counterplans: My favorite kind of debate. Tricky or smart CPs will earn you my respect. If the counterplan is long or has a lot of planks, somewhere in your speeches there should be an explanation of how it solves the specific impacts of the aff. The easier it is to understand what the CP does, the better. Also, an explanation of why the CP does not link to the DA that you are going for as a net benefit s important. Condo is probably good. Like most theory, I have a high threshold for going for it in the 2AR.

Disads: Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, especially if they are dropped. A good explanation of why the link applies to the case is necessary. Impacts should be compared, and it is always helpful to have framing arguments about magnitude over probability. Impacts and uniqueness don't matter to me when evaluating the probability of a DA so much as the link. If the link doesn't exist, the DA doesn't exist. Good aff defense on this part of the DA is crucial.

Kritiks: I am familiar with what is considered the major policy kritiks, like security and neoliberalism, though I'm fine with any kritik as long as it indicts the thesis of the aff. If it doesn't, then it will be hard for you to get my ballot. Good links are really important, whether they are representation, epistemology, etc it doesn't matter. The negative cannot just prove the world is bad, but that the aff is bad. Also, state bad is not a link. The affirmative most likely gets to weigh the aff.

Topicality: I am fine with T. You should go for it like you would a CP and a DA, with standards as your offense. The aff needs offense and explanation as to why that turns the neg's standards. A strong argument that impacts out limits will go a long way to getting my ballot. Whatever side you are on you need to paint a picture of what the topic looks like, preferably with caselists, and a quick explanation as to why these cases matter. Reasonability is important, competing interps will likely result in a neg ballot.

Framework v K affs: Not much to say here, debate is a game and fairness is an impact. I'm liable to vote on presumption if the explanation of the aff is lacking.