Stumbris,+Kedrick

Updated: 10/31/2017 (real spooopy)

** Quick Hitters **
 *  "'If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27.' - Akhil Jalan" - Kedrick Stumbris
 * You need to flash the speech to your opponent and to me. Too many of you are clipping. If you don't flash the speech at least to your opponent (given they have a computer), you will not get above a 27.
 * The previous point means that I want to be on an email chain --> kedrickstumbris@gmail.com

 **Experience**: As it pertains to my experience as a debater- I debated for four years in high school at Appleton East. Yes it is a small, northern Wisconsin high school, but the bulk of my experience as a debater comes from debating on the national circuit. My junior and senior years of high school were spent almost entirely debating at bid tournaments anywhere from Wake Forest to Blake. In high school, I read and went for a fairly even mix between policy and critically based arguments. In high school, I debated almost exclusively policy debate except for some LD practice debates and one PF tournament (but that was really just for the Lawls).

 **My experience as a judge/coach -** This year will be my third year judging/coaching (primarily for Appleton East). I handle coaching for PF, LD, and Policy (more in LD and Policy) and have coached each of these divisions on the national circuit extensively.


 * Short Version- ** A debater who does what they do best, even if it’s an argument that I generally dislike, in front of me will always win more points from me than if they do only an adequate job of executing an argument than I generally prefer to hear. Do what you do best; Tech beats truth. While I read a wide array of critical and policy arguments when I debated, I am marginally more familiar with policy based arguments. That fact should not affect what arguments you decide to run, but just know that your policy arguments will generally require less explanation of the nuances of your argument than some critical arguments.

 __**Long Version **__

  <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">If you make jokes about the University of Michigan in your speeches, especially if you are able to relate them to my debacle I had with them, you will be rewarded with speaker points if I deem the jokes to be tasteful. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">This long version of my philosophy will open you to the ways in which I personally think about debate. Don’t mistake my thought process as being biases for and against certain arguments. My mind about debate as a whole has been radically changed before and likely will continue to change as I am around the activity for longer and longer. Don’t mistake my ramblings for biases. A team who executes what they do best in front of me (regardless of the argument) will always get the win over a team who tries catering to the nuances of the way I think about debate instead of focusing in on what they do best.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Miscellaneous- ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I am very tech oriented. You likely won’t be over technical to the point where I am unable to follow your intent as I was a very tech oriented debater myself. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument (unless that argument is objectively false). I do think that there can be a zero percent risk of an impact, link, etc., but this takes A TON of work. I do value a well warranted and well executed defensive argument. Stick to the flow, answer your opponents arguments, and you’ll have a good chance at the W.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">My one issue I have had with debaters lately is that they have no clear distinction between when they are reading the text of cards and their taglines. Please do this. Also, slow down on theory shells. I do not have your 6 year old theory block sitting right in front of me like you do and I would actually like to be able to flow them clearly.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Speed- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"> Read fast. Read clear. You likely won’t have issues with me keeping up to speed with you, but I will make it obvious if you’re having an issue speaking clearly. I flow with pen and paper; if I can’t understand you, you will see me set down my pen. If I didn’t understand your argument and consequentially did not put it on my flow in your earlier speech then I won’t flow your “extension” of said argument later in the debate.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Topicality- ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I love a good T debate. Key word: good. In high school I often read and went for T against what were objectively topical affs so I really don’t have an issue with you reading T against any aff that you please. I have yet to hear a compelling reason to default to reasonability in topicality debates. I believe competing interpretations is the only method to adjudicate a T debate without necessitating intervention on some level, but this does not mean you can drop the reasonability debate. I think the majority of topicality debates I see are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever. In order for either side to win a T debate they need to have two/three things:

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp, or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">3. A case list. This isn’t “necessary” per se because some definitions are made simply to exclude a very specific affirmative (like the T debate regarding icebreakers on the oceans topic), but other interpretations beg the question of what other affs still remain topical under your interpretation. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Random personal preference: I’m not a fan of “predictability” as a standard. I see it to be just as arbitrary as reasonability. Instead of making a predictability argument you should flush out a limits disad which speaks to the same effect, but does so more persuasively.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Here’s my theoretical stance on counterplans in order of most legitimate to least: <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Advantage CPs (individual) <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Plan Inclusive CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Multiplank CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">International Actor CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Condition CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Process CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Multiactor CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Consult CPs <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Delay CPs
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Counterplans- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">They should be competitive (obviously), but by that I mean both functionally and textually. Don’t think that you should alter your game plan to fit this preference of mine however. I’ve ran, and won on, many “cheater” counterplans myself. If an aff team can’t beat a cheater counterplan, they deserve to lose to it. I do believe that the best way for an aff to beat one of these cheating counterplans is to go for theory. Generally these theoretical objections would be reasons to reject the argument, but I can be persuaded otherwise (especially if the CP appears in the 2NR)

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Theory **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- I guess that list provides a good segway into my opinions on a theory debate. I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some crappy answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. RVIs are generally a bad argument, especially on T. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality).

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Well now that I’ve mentioned it twice I might as well give you my spiel on the one theoretical argument most debaters seem to care about most in particular: conditionality. I believe that a negative should generally get to read 2 conditional advocacies without having any trouble; I believe 3 conditional advocacies is generally defensible for teams who are used to reading strategies that typically have 3 conditional advocacies (any LDers reading this should note that I think it is very hard to justify more than one conditional advocacy read by the neg). If you’re a 2A you probably think I’m crazy, BUT I do think that most people aren’t too hot at debating theory and that generally the negative blows it off as a non-factor far more often than they should (as a 2N I was definitely guilty of this). I think a conditionality debate in particular that is extended well by the affirmatives in the 1AR is extremely strategic and the time trade-off that should be garnered is a great advantage to extending the argument even if you aren’t necessarily planning on going for it. As the affirmative team who does plan on going all in on the conditionality debate you need to outline these three things to me:

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">1. An example of in-round abuse. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">2. An impact to that abuse- how did the abuse affect the fairness/education/etc that is generally an aspect of debating. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">3. Why it should be a voting issue.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Typically most teams will find their in-round abuse claims in the form of performative contradictions. I don’t think the claim “they severed their reps and we can’t sever ours” is a very compelling argument against a negative team’s ability to contradict themselves. I think the bright line as it comes to this is if the negative uses the affs arguments which were selected to defeat one of the negative team’s arguments against the aff as a link to a negative argument that contradicts the original argument the aff was trying to defeat. In short, cross-applying responses from the affirmative across different flows to gain links is usually the way the negative finds themselves in trouble with the perf con debate. Obviously this doesn’t necessarily have to be solely an in-round abuse claim on conditionality. Perf con could be a VI on its own if a negative team reads both a positive peace kritik and a heg good DA. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Last bit on Condo, If you answer saying that the "status quo is always an option" when asked what the status of the CP/Alt is, I will kick it for you in the 2NR if need be, but you need to tell me what kicking it gets you if you lose x part of the CP/K. You obviously have to be able to theoretically justify judge kick when the aff makes it an issue.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. I don’t have your 5 year old condo block sitting in front of me as you read it, so no, I don’t understand you as you blow through 5 subpoints in as many seconds. If I don’t catch your subpoint in the 2AC I won’t be flowing the “extension” of it in the 1AR.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Kritiks- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"> Typically I see K debates as a double edged sword. Usually teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">2. A link that is specific to the affirmative <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">ANSWER THE PERMUTATIONS. Don’t just group them, answer them specifically and tell me why they don’t solve. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">On the flipside, here’s how an affirmative typically finds themselves beating the K:

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">1. Have a defense of your method/reps/epistemology/etc <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">2. Make smart permutations (double bind is typically the most useful of the generics) <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">3. Attack the ability of the alt to solve

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Between these arguments make sure you mix in offense. This offense can many times be articulated as a net benefit to your permutation. Make sure you are using your aff against the K. It is the greatest net benefit to any permutation you can make. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The framework debate I’ll typically evaluate as to which interpretation can provide the most ground for both teams. Neg teams should leverage framework as to why I should consider the assumptions of the affirmative before weighing their advantages. Affirmatives should leverage framework as a reason to weigh their advantages against the K.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">K affs- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"> Plan text, no plan text, performance, topic related, totally out there, I’m fine with it all. Typically it seems that teams have an easier time defending an aff with at the very least an advocacy statement and having their affirmative be topic related. Even better is when they interact with the topic at some level even if they do not necessarily affirm it. Teams debating against K affs are free to read any argument they see fit against it. From counter advocacies, to other sorts of kritiks, to framework arguments, just do what you do best. Typically framework arguments are able to garner more offense against affs that don’t discuss the topic.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Disads **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">-Typically you’ll see these in the form of net benefits to your CP, but I love ‘em just the same when they’re riding solo. A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts to the affirmative. I love seeing a good politics debate. I truly think they’re just the most fun disads out there. As for politics theory arguments like “fiat solves the link,” “vote no,” and “bottom of the docket” won’t typically carry much weight from me. I can however be persuaded by an intrinsicness argument, but I have yet to see a team do so successfully. Just be careful: uttering those 3 word phrases is not an argument on its own. If you plan on going in on one of these theory arguments then your best bet is to plant your feet early because otherwise you will more than likely lack the infrastructure of the argument in order to expand upon it as much as you should in the later speeches.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Impact turns- **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I might be a little bit strange for putting a section dedicated to the impact turn here in this philosophy, but I am doing so if for no more reason than to make a point. The impact turn is a severely underrated strategy by the negative. Making a 2A get bogged down on their own advantages isn’t fun and they’re going to want to move on more quickly than they typically should. However, impact turn debates are generally pretty messy. If you’re going to impact turn create a structure of the turn debate that corresponds with your 1NC arguments. Structure is the important part. While I believe that impact turning has become underrated, I also think that many debaters lack the technical skills to do it well. If you can do it and do it well, you will make me very happy.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Endnotes- ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">This was way longer than I intended it to be.