Sabransky,+Will


 * Name:** Will Sabransky
 * School:** Whitney Young

I debated for New Trier for 4 years and am currently an assistant coach at Whitney Young HS.


 * Short Version:**

I don’t have any argumentative predispositions – go for whatever you'll debate the best.


 * Long Version:**

//Topicality//

I think that topicality is generally a predictable limits discussion, but I am happy to vote for a T violation if ground loss is the impact and is proven by the direction of the 2AC. However, “we couldn’t read these arguments” is MUCH less persuasive to me than “the aff made these particularly abusive arguments in the 2AC.” Aside from that, I think that topicality is just as much of a game of strategy as all other arguments in debate, and even if your interpretation is one that is generally regarded as ridiculous or if it is one that probably would create a bad topic in my opinion, I will have no problem voting for you if you are winning the flow on a technical level.

//CP Theory//

I find it difficult to vote for a 2A easily whose analysis of the debate is “the 2 conditional worlds made it impossible for me to make my best arguments in the 2AC” especially if the 2N is on top of their game. I think that multiple conditional advocacies are probably legitimate, but this has no bearing on whether I will vote on conditionality bad if the aff is winning it. I think that the affirmative should have to be smart in the 2AC and I will be very reluctant to vote on “you have abused me” arguments unless the negative has done something that has truly structurally made it impossible for the aff to give a good 2AC. If you are determined to win the debate this way, talk about why the particular arguments the neg made make conditionality worse – contextualize the theory debate for me. I do think that theory debates are more about abuse than T debates are because they deal more with direct in-round action, but I also think a theory debate is much more clear when it becomes about two interpretations of what the negative/affirmative get to do and which is more net beneficial. I think that consult/condition CPs have more competition than legitimacy issues.

//Kritiks//

I find most critical literature pretty interesting, but this doesn't mean I prefer a K debate over a politics disad and case. If you win the debeate on a technical level (as goes for all other arguments), you will have no trouble getting my ballot. The most important question in my eyes when evaluating kritiks is how the kritik interacts with the affirmative. I think that the most fair framework for evaluating these types of debates is that the aff gets to weigh their advantages but must justify their impact calculus, and the neg gets to weight their alt vs. the plan. Whether we should assume the alt exists or whether we should debate about the “solvency” of the alt mechanism is for the debaters to resolve in my opinion. Some kritiks seem to just be heg bad arguments in disguise, and affs should handle these appropriately. I think that floating PIKs are probably abusive if they emerge in the block, and the aff should make arguments as such. Do not attempt to go for a K if you have no idea what you’re talking about. Your speaker points will suffer tremendously and I will probably be very receptive to case outweighs arguments. If the aff is not mentioned specifically in your 2NC link analysis you probably have a problem. Reciprocally, affs shouldn’t just read cards. They should be making clear analysis about how their aff compares to the kritik and why it’s more important.

//Other Stuff//

Paperless - I don't take prep for flashing speeches.

Speaker Points - I think that debate is an educational activity that should be competitive, at least on a surface level. I will nuke your points if you are mean to your opponents for no reason. It is not fun to watch and it is definitely not fun to be the person you’re being mean to. I have no problem with giving high points, and if you deserve it you will get a 29 or higher. If you clip cards and it is obvious what you are doing, I will probably give you a 20 or below. I think that debate should be fair, and teams who try to abuse it without defending their abuse should be punished. If you notice your opponents subtly clipping, call them out.

Silly Arguments - Although I will probably not give you great points for running these over a specific strategy, I do not refuse to vote on any argument, and if you win, you will get my ballot. If your argument is offensive, the same holds true, but the offensiveness of your argument will probably be reflected in your points.

Speed/Clarity – If I have to strain myself to flow you, you will lose points. Take clarity over speed – it helps with your persuasiveness as well as with your ethos in the debate. I would rather you read 4 off and have the room be able to understand what the 4 arguments are than you read 8 off and have the room guessing.

Evidence – Resolving evidence distinctions should ideally be up to the debaters, not me. If you ask me to read a card because it’s good and you tell me why it will subsume the rest of their claims, I will probably do it. The time when I won’t read evidence is when I have to reconstruct the debate with it because none of the debaters were clear or impacted their arguments. Analytics can outweigh evidence if you have substantive arguments for why they do. I will do my best to not give a team arguments from their evidence that aren't explicitly in the debate. Also, in K debates, if I have to read your authors to understand your argument, I will probably defer to well-explained arguments that the aff is making.