Kelly+Haselton

"Do you take prep for flashing": https://www.google.com/search?q=No+cat&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=TLTYvCvc-pZEQM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRZW-BvuHy2DcGjhbKf13ujawJDQOfBaYhRNMlP6GHwwALldnPB%253B578%253B433%253BVXBfPJ_hXxDLvM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.businessinsider.com.au%25252Freddits-ad-sales-pitch-deck-2013-5&sa=X&ei=hHnRUv3NBIaUkQfPjoGQAw&ved=0CE8Q9QEwBA&biw=1962&bih=1038&dpr=0.75#imgdii=_

// **Pre-round version:** // -Do what you will, my job is to listen, not mandate. The one exception is a ny argumentation that results in discrimination against an individual or group. Such strategies or acts will result in an instantaneous loss. -Calum is a computer, I work on computers. Those facts are not the same. Sounding like a drone is not an effective way to be persuasive when the debate is close. -While offense-defense is academically bankrupt, in competitive debate you need to do more than give an interesting observation about the state of things (Baudrillard, etc). You need a reason to win, not vague assertions of truth or reality being fabricated. -If your counter plan includes the possibility of doing the plan (i.e., fiating the plan, as opposed to "resulting in" the plan), you might find a better use of your 1NC time making fart noises than reading it. -"This is stupid/offensive" isn't an argument. -"Perm do the plan and all noncompetitive parts" is not a permutation, it's a vague description of what you should have said. -X-SPEC/Only our plan is topical/Perms bad/Kritiks bad will result in me laughing in your face. -If I can't flow it, it did not come out of your mouth. I can assure you I can transcribe every word if it wasn't a waste of energy and an impediment to decision time. If you aren't clear, there's not many people in the room to blame. -Not a fan of T or drawn out theory debates. Be reasonable in your arguments and you will find me reasonable. -Any contradictions in this list aside, rule 1 will hold above all others. If you want to win with an impediment, that's your choice.

//**Long version:**//

I attended MBA and am currently a double major in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Political Science with an IR focus at U.C. Berkeley. I spend my spare time reading IR books and learning new computer languages; my favorite of each are //The Tragedy of Great Power Politics// and //C++// respectively. I understand any broad, theoretical idea about almost every debate subject that you can provide. Even if I am light on the topic specifics, chances are you can debate as if you had a Daryll Burch, a Calum Matheson, or a Garrett Abelkop in the back. I am literate and capable of learning quickly. I know how to use Google and find no problem looking up acronyms that exist in academia.

Now that you've read a paragraph which is of no use to your debate, keep these general rules in mind: 1) Don't assume my political alignment (and thus your argument choice) based on my choice of education 2) The way debate treats some subjects (especially cyber attacks) is offensive to the real world representation of the issue. You are welcome to read Norton Virus Scan's propaganda about the trillions/billions of dollars that a cyber attack would cause, arms analysts' argument about how developing a Denial of Service "weapon" would lead to it's "proliferation" around the globe despite the fact that any idiot with half a computer education can pull one off, or "Mearsheimer" cards that claim multipolarity is better than Hegemony. I understand time constraints and the proliferation of impacts does undermine the in-depth explanation on issues, but an effort to draw on a much deeper understanding of an author or concept than you opponents' tagline claim is an almost automatic victory if pulled off. 3) #2 non-withstanding, hearing debate cards about cyber security are the equivalent of my favorite song being butchered by a shitty singer in American Idol tryouts- it is a travesty that such a unique scenario is so misrepresented, but even more so that I have to listen to it and pretend not to be enraged. 4) I assume people enjoy this activity for the same reason that the 1% enjoy America- you can say anything without fear of censorship so long as it does not bring harm to others. You would not stand for someone pretending to know more about your topic than you claiming that it's not allowed, and therefore you shouldn't treat this debate round any differently. 5) One of my best friends is an extremely liberal democrat and one of the most hardcore Zionists I have ever seen in my life. Claiming that the general theses of two arguments are contradictory is useless; finding a specific example of the specific deployment execution between two arguments the other team presents is a death sentence to your opponents. 6) Unique may not always be synonymous with quality, but if you don't react well to the other team debating something "uniquely" it probably will be of high enough quality for you to lose. It's not my job to make arguments for you in my decision; dumb arguments can be answered with fewer words. The phrase "This is stupid" is always a worse argument than what the other team has said. 7) I know when an argument isn't responsive to your claim. If you do not say it isn't relevant, I will try to evaluate the debate as if it is. However, it is hard to insert arguments as responsive as "farts are colored orange" into my decision calculus despite my best efforts. That being said, if you claim an argument is responsive to your argument when it isn't, that's a double edged sword: if you tell me the debate all depends on who wins whether statism is good when statism has nothing to do with anything you've said, I will evaluate the debate on whether statism is good. The benefit to that double-edged sword? There is none. Don't give yourself an unnecessary burden, winning every claim gets you nowhere when you only need to win one. 8) Please don't read cards by former debaters. Even if it's for academia, the hyperbole in whatever segment you select is inherently suspicious and prone to make me think that article was written to explicitly win a debate round. 9) I could care less about your efforts to arbitrarily constrain the theoretical positions and/or topical Affs that your opponents are allowed to read. 10) This claim goes last because I like to believe there's some good in the world and I don't want an ominous air of pessimism around the debate:

//__**If you cheat, I will catch you.**__//

http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/52/32/1905c1290569414900508712ecad9113-micdrop06.gif