Selesner,+Jeremy

I debated for the Meadows School in high school and then at Northwestern for a little bit.

Here are things that are semi-useful for you to know:
 * In highschool, everyone thought we were a K team, even though we went for policy strategies far more often. Flexibility is good, I think teams should be able to go for Ks and disads.


 * I think most the problems that people identify with conditonality are actually problems with bad views of competition. If I were to default to my true preferences, I would say that we should only consider logical and relevant costs or opportunity costs to the aff/plan. It doesn't seem to me that international or state fiat pose a relevant question to whether the USFG should do the plan, because they are outside its power to control. I don't understand how counterplans that compete on the likely implementation of the plan (Consult, conditioning, process, or PICs/Agents not based on some word in the plan text), as opposed to the required implementation of the plan, are competitive. They read a disad to something external to the plan text, and one should be able to permute the externally-introduced opportunity to avoid it. Because these counterplans focus on trivial and external things, it usually requires a greater time investment on the affirmative's part to both explain theory and read extra evidence to make artificial advantages more credible. Would unlimited conditionality really be a problem if none of these counterplans existed?


 * I am probably more willing than most judges to ignore statements that don't constitute a sufficiently credible argument.


 * I am probably more willing than most judges to ignore evidence that I don't think says what you think it says


 * I don't think Heidegger as it is commonly deployed is an argument, it's an FYI that the aff "forgot to think about something". However, I am pretty sure I have voted for Heidegger more often than I have voted against it.