Haughton,Kevon

RU 15'
==First and For most! Debate is meant to be a fun activity! With this being said, in round humor is definitely a plus! Debate rounds often tend to get real boring, in debate, stacks are always justified!!! Moreover be incredibly careful, there is a low threshold for what defines something as offensive when it comes to "stack throwing" so if you pull of stack deployment cleverly you will be rewarded with bonus speaker points! A stack is defined as subtly whilst cleverly insulting a person's argument or debate performance. If you want good speaks, "throw stacks" get out of your comfort zone and make it work for you. Done well only means youll get rewarded ;)==

===Do what you do! I do not walk into the room with a predetermined framework on how the round should be evaluated. The debaters in the room set the Framework and I will judge the round as such. I did policy debate competitively throughout high school and i'm also a third year Varsity College Debater so I am fine with speed and debate jargon, etc. I do not have any preferences as many judges say before the round but my ballots most times always reflect the arguments I'm most familiar with. I am familiar with both Critical and Policy types of arguments so regardless of whichever team you are I can always adapt efficiently. ===

===**Interpretation of the Round**: My default interpretation of the round is within the lens of a policymaker, evaluating the affirmative plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. If there is an alternative framework, or a clash of two different frameworks I will evaluate the round based upon the winning framework. Each team should focus upon the warrants as to why their framework is favorable for the round; otherwise ‘winning the flow’ becomes difficult to assess. I believe that the affirmative should defend a stable advocacy whether or not they have an advocacy text and if they should be held accountable for not having one is up for debate.f there is a theoretical objection in the round I will evaluate as per a offense/defense paradigm. I will adapt to whatever is presented in the round as long as it is defended and explained. My default method of risk calculus is always based upon an offense-defense paradigm, strictly on the flow and what was argued. I will not make extrapolations by myself, and will only assess what’s given to me. That being said, judge intervention is inevitable- however I will not allow for biases to intervene in my judgement All in all, there are other frameworks, and it is up to the debaters in the room to determine which framework I should chooSse.===

Specific Strategies for the Negative:
===- Disad/Status-quo/Case Strategies: I love the Case Debate; Politics Disads are fine, as long as you know what you’re talking about. I have seen politics disads debated very well, and very poorly. It’s my favorite Disad, and when argued well- it shows your intelligence. A good politics debater understands the political spectrum of the status quo. The more specific impact calculus the better. The negative should prove how their impacts intersect or outweigh the impacts of the affirmative in any type of DA. Specific warranted analysis on the case turn debate is a must. Case Defense is also a very important strategy in neutralizing the impacts of the affirmative. If the negative wins good ‘defensive’ arguments against the Affirmative’s advantages, it puts their DA impacts to a higher standard of evaluation in comparison to the Aff’s advantages. The same applies for the affirmative using “defensive” arguments against the DA.===

===Counterplans: Counterplans should be competitive. They must be a better policy option than the affirmative. I may be a little AFF biased when it comes to evaluating the CP against the AFF. That’s just because I'm a 2A and remember strategies where there were Advantage CP’s, multi-actor counterplans, Agent Pics and Discourse Pics all in the same round. For a Counterplan to be a legitimate use of fiat it must have a solvency advocate or else itll be considered as a use of utopian fiat. To win the cp you must justify its use of fiat especially if the counterplan has several planks and is international or is some random agent within the USFG. Regardless, I think that the Counterplan ultimately has one use: To disprove that the Affirmative plan is necessary to solve for the problems presented in the 1AC. This is where Advantage Counterplans that solve for the internal link to the Aff advantages are highly respectable. The Aff should be ready for this by having specific Add-ons that the Advantage CP can’t capture.===

===Counterplan Theory: Conditionality is probably the best thing for negatives. I’d appreciate it if there was maybe 1 conditional CP, 1 conditional K, and then the status quo. My threshold for Theory usually is high, I wont pull the trigger on it unless I see genuine in round abuse.===

===Topicality: I hate it, but usually when I have to evaluate the argument I generally believe that in round abuse is the best framework to evaluate topicality. However, I wont dismiss competing interpretations as a framework to evaluate the round but a team has prove and win without a doubt that the other team should be really should be rejected. Topicality in the 2NR has to be purely offensive to win my ballot. I view topicality strictly in an offense/defense paradigm, where the end result of the debate establishes affirmative case ground. This also means that all impact turns to both neg interpretation and aff counter interpretation applies. Limits is one of the most important standards, which is a gateway to most offense (i.e. fairness, predictability). You must prove why your dialogue and portable skills arguments are true for that specific debate round and not future rounds===

===Performances and general criticisms of debate: Debate in my opinion is a very strategic and educational game. You play to be competitive and to win. Go Big or Go home. I have debated the One of K and the One off Performance advocacy both on the aff and the neg. I believe that there is some truth about the educational aspect of both policy and critical types of arguments; but in round it is up to the debaters to "sell the argument to me and prove why they should get my ballot. Especially on the aff, the affirmative team has to write my ballot for me in the 2AR, specifically they must explain what my ballot means especially in the context of their movement. Is my ballot a representation of an instance of coalition building? like what is it!? Bottom Line, on the negative; debate what your most comfortable with, slightly adjust to my paradigm and you should be fine.===

===Kritiks: I love the Kritik debate, I am familiar with most types of commonly read literature in policy debate rounds. Theories about Capitalism, Feminism, Anthropocentrism, Security Nietzche etc. I am not familiar with Kritiks of Buddhism, Daoism, Baulldriard etc, bottom line is, if your K isnt mainstream I don't want to hear it! Especially if its some random K your coach gave you before the round. In a world where you cant explain the alternative your speaker points will reflect your explanation. In order to win a large magnitude of the K, the negative has to win some risk of the K turning case and the alternative solving some form of the affirmative. Framework is also really important in terms of the K debate. How should both the aff and neg impacts be viewed in the debate. Does the Aff get to weigh their impacts or is fiat illusory? These questions should not be left unaswered for me to do so until the end of the debate. If teams disregard affirmative advantages and simply argue their K, ill evaluate the k as a non-unique disad. If teams don’t have a substantial alternative, then the K is simply a linear case turn. The more specific the link and impact analysis is tailored to the affirmative the better! I have a high threshold for the K===

===Theory: Blippy theory arguments are not convincing, and a team must win explicitly that the other team should be rejected instead of their argument. I generally believe that negation theory and conditionality can be easily defended. Plan inclusive counterplans are in most part competitive. Most consultation counterplans are plan plus, and artificially competitive (i.e. the net benefit does not de-justify plan action because it is triggered by something external to the affirmative). I am more aff lenient to conditionality being bad as an argument if there are severe contradictions from the negative.===

===Impact Calculus: This is an essential tool to win. Hands down. Comparative analysis FTW The rebuttals should primarily focus on this, because it is the selling point of the debate. Also, for debaters favoring a “probability” style of debate, I believe that probability serves as an internal link to assessing the magnitude of a given impact.===