Young,+Margaret

__Background:__ Walter Payton College Prep (2011-2015): National Circuit, TOC Northwestern University (2016-2020): Debating in College In high school, I came from a school with little coaching and few resources, where I was both the 2A and the 2N and cut basically any argument I ever read.

__Meta-level:__ Run what you like. I’m not going to pretend that I’m completely tabula rasa, but if you debate well, make the right framing arguments, take advantage of strategic concessions, etc., I’m going to vote for you (which probably means you would win the debate anyway).

__Basics:__
 * Tech > Truth – there have been some arguments that have pushed me to my limits on this, but if it’s a dumb argument, it should be that much easier to beat.
 * An argument is __a claim, a warrant, and **an impact**__ – the first two are obvious, but you need to explain how an argument implicates the others in the debate or provide a lens with which to view arguments.
 * A conceded argument is a true argument unless a predictable cross-application can be made – however, it’s not enough to say “they dropped X” – you must have an articulated explanation of what the concession means for the rest of the debate.
 * Evidence comparison, whether through qualifications or warrants, is crucial for resolving major questions in the debate and for avoiding judge intervention when calling for cards.
 * 0% risk is hard but so-low-it’s-irrelevant risk is an easier sell.
 * Unless the aff makes an argument otherwise, I don’t have a problem kicking the CP/alternative (especially if the neg states that the status quo is a logical option) even if it’s not an argument in the 2NR.

__K Affs:__
 * Some form of stasis is important – what that stasis is up for debate. In terms of framework, the aff should at least affirm or be in the direction of the resolution; there also needs to be a clear articulation of why the topical version of the aff and “do it on the neg” don’t solve.
 * Comparing political strategies and/or impacts is crucial in deciding these debates. Does activism outweigh fairness? Does engaging the government outweigh individual resistance?
 * Agnostic about whether no-plan affs should be allowed a perm – the theory debate is winnable for the neg, but if that’s your main strategy because of a non-sensical or poorly-explained link, you’re in trouble.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Topicality:__
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debate T like a DA – you need terminal impact and internal link comparison and flowable warrants and not simply vague claims about “limits” or “topic specific education.”
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Everything must have an impact – for example, discussions of the quality of interpretation evidence should be impacted with precision/predictability/grammar arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What makes the best vision of the topic is not necessarily what is the smallest or biggest topic – what kinds of advantages, mechanisms, core topic debates does their interpretation prevent?
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Usually default to competing interpretations, but reasonability is certainly winnable.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Theory:__
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Same as T – terminal impact and internal link comparison with flowable warrants instead of throwing around random buzzwords like “neg flex” or “strat skew.”
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Anything other than conditionality is generally just a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
 * However, using theory to justify other arguments can be strategic and is often underutilized, such as “winning Process CPs bad justifies Perm do the CP.”

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Kritiks:__
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I’m very knowledgeable with the classic IR, economics, environment, etc. critiques as well as many identity-based arguments, and (unfortunately) I know way more than I’d like to about high theory arguments such as Bataille, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, and Schopenhaur (thanks Lenny and Luisa!).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Specificity is crucial. Pulling lines from their cards, discussing their authors, reading cards about the mechanism/advantages can help counter aff specificity claims. Same thing goes with impact comparison – explanations of why the K turns the impact / why the alternative resolves the issues of the 1AC can help counter alternative solvency presses. Also, turns aff solvency arguments are often underutilized.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Alternative explanations are best for me when what happens if you win framework is explained and when the alternative is discussed in terms of scholarship and action. Like with framework, comparing differing political strategies is important.

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Counterplans: __
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Solvency advocates – There are merits to both sides: can be good for predictability, can impede logically testing non-intrinsic aff advantages. Therefore, the logic of a CP without a solvency advocate will determine my decision. Any other interpretation will depend on the availability of negative ground and the theory debating.
 * However, neg teams should call out affs whose solvency advocate doesn’t meet their standards.
 * Theory/Competition – Two sides of the same coin. If the neg can prove that the CP is a legitimate opportunity cost to the plan, then aff theory arguments are much less persuasive. Again, legitimacy depends on topic lit and the availability of other neg ground; although a Recommendation CP is very likely never going to be competitive, it depends largely on how the theory debate is executed.

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Disads: __
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Link generally controls the direction of uniqueness. However, if the link and uniqueness arguments aren’t cohesive (i.e., politics uniqueness is about Republicans but the link is about Democrats), then uniqueness arguments become substantially more persuasive. Your link cards must resolve the warrants in your uniqueness cards.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">DA overviews are more than just magnitude, timeframe, probability, and turns case arguments (although those are important). Filter the debate through the arguments the aff conceded or misinterpreted. Answering “what is certain about the DA after X speech?” and then framing your answers to other aff arguments in terms of that makes your debating much more persuasive. For example, if they’ve conceded the link, how can you use that as leverage against a link uniqueness argument they made?
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Agnostic about theory (intrinsicness, bottom of the docket, etc.), but the aff should be able to defend their vision of debate with an internal link and an impact. For example, "DA not intrinsic – a logical policy maker could do both" doesn't meet this standard, because there is no impact.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5135px;">__Ethics:__
 * If there is evidence that you have clipped cards, you will lose and receive the lowest points possible. Your partner and the other team will receive normal points as best as I can determine.