Pappas,Alex

Glenbrook North 2011 University of Michigan 2015


 * Addendum 4/22/12:**

Acronyms - I know almost nothing about the space topic. So ASAT's, NSP, DSP, QSP, LMNOP, ASDFG, - tell me what all this stuff is. This actively hinders my understanding of the debate and creates lots of confusion.

I will admit that flowing isn't my strong suit. I decide debates based upon what I have written down on a sheet of paper or a computer. It isn't for a lack of trying. I never really learned to flow properly This sounds more catastrophic than it is, but I am posting it here as a forewarning. If an argument is important, let me know.

When an argument is introduced I presume it to be true. So, the 1ac is true until the 1nc says that it isn't. The same presumption goes for a counterplan. The introduction of one implies that it solves the case. The aff has a burden of proving that it doesn't. I judged a debate where the neg said extinction good and the aff never defended human life in the 2ar so I voted neg. Dropping new 2nc aspec or dropping new affs bad at the bottom of a 2nc on condo, I will vote neg without remorse. I find myself repeatedly voting for bad arguments. If they are bad then you should have an easier time defeating them.

While I often say things that appear ideological, I genuinely don't care what argument you advance. No neg fiat, identity arguments, cheating cps, bad t arguments or awesome disad and case debate -- I am all for it. At the end of the day, i will do my best to fairly determine whether or not you have won the debate. Don't be dissuaded from advancing any argument irrespective of what it is. That said,here are a few of my thoughts.
 * Old Philosophy**:

1. Tech over truth -- I believe that no argument is ever capital T true. I won't neg on "the sky is blue voting issue", but a dropped argument with a claim impact and warrant is one hundred percent true if dropped.

2. Post round conditionality -- you must explicitly say that I can kick the cp for you otherwise I will default to the position advanced in the 2nr.

3. CP links to politics -- either it does or it doesn't. I don't think link differential make much sense unless explained well by the neg.

As an FYI -- my favorite judges in high school were - Calum,Dheidt, Ed Lee. Kuntal. If I didn't have Greenstein as a coach in high school, I would have loved him as a judge.

Specific Arguments --

Topicality -- I love good T debates. I made my high school career going for T. If you debate T well, I will give you sweet points. I generally am more persuaded by limits good/a smaller, more limited topic is better. I am slightly neg leaning when it comes to questions of limits. On the aff predictability/precision outweigh limits are the most persuasive arguments. Terminal impact comparison is important. "We lose the spending da or politics" isn't an impact. It is hard to be aff isn't an impact either.

Kritiks -- Mainstream kritiks I understand with some degree of competence. I am not well versed in kritikal literature. If you are going for Bataille/ D and G etc. know I have a cursory understanding, but not an in depth one. Whether on the aff or the neg, explain the argument and why it applies to the aff. Aff beware, I am likely to vote neg if you drop dumb k tricks (vtl, floating piks etc). However, the neg has to be clear about this stuff in the block. The 2nr that asserts the floating pik that I didn't flow won't be getting the ballot on that argument.

CPs -- no general bias about any of this. If you wreck a team on consult, more power to you. While I think that consult cps are bad for debate almost definitely, I would be one hundred percent persuaded by the argument that they are key to process education and that outweighs fairness. I won many debates in high school on signing statements etc. So, while the truth of the matter is that they are probably terrible for debate, if you win that they are good I will vote for you and think you are awesome. Competition -- entirely based on how it is debated. Counterplan competition debates truly intrigue me. A good 2nr on "this cp is not only good but necessary for debate" is awesome. Similarly, a good 2ar on this cp is bullshit and doesn't compete I would find very persuasive. At the end of the day, all up to you.

Politics -- Uniqueness and the link are about relative risk. No one side is correct. Each wins a degree of uniqueness and a degree of the link. Say which comes first and why.

Turns the case arguments -- neg please make lots of them. Aff beware in how you answer them. Turns case arguments don't need cards if they are logical and smart. Most arguments don't for that matter. If it makes sense, a card isn't necessary.

At the end of the day, have fun. I love this activity. I have loved it since the moment I started it. I respect hard work. I respect those who care to improve. Work hard and I will do my best to work hard for you.