Hantel,+Max

Max Hantel--LD Philosophy Debated 4 years of policy at Kinkaid and 3 years at Georgetown. Current coach for Bronx Science and PhD candidate in Gender Studies at Rutgers University. I debated policy my whole career but have now coached LD for about two years and feel pretty comfortable with the activity. I have no real predispositions about how the debate should go, other than to say theory debates tend to be miserable because they're underdeveloped and not impacted. I've been told I have a slightly higher threshold for warrants, particularly on standards debate, but I think I just put a big emphasis on impact calculus, whether theory, critiques, or whatever. So do a lot of that in your last speeches. Generally speaking, however, I want you to do whatever you are comfortable with argumentatively instead of adjusting at all to me. Go as fast as you want.

Policy Philosophy Across my career I've debated a fair amount of different styles and for different coaches across the spectrum. So I am comfortable with any and all arguments and certainly don't categorically rule anything out. Here are brief comments on the type of arguments I tend to hear, but please ask if you have any other specific questions:

Criticisms: Specificity wins the day for me in all K debates. Reading more cards in the 2NC is generally less useful (depending on how specific the link cards are) then just doing specific application of 1NC cards vis-a-vis the 1AC plan/rhetoric. This is particularly true when trying to cast doubt on the truth claims of a "traditional" aff. Winning basic "predictions bad" arguments are a start, but they need to be articulated in terms of the affirmative. Role of the ballot questions are generally decisive for me. To be clear, this is not necessarily the same as stale framework debates. It is more about articulating the stakes of voting either way, for a simulation of governmental action versus some problematization of that simulation in different registers. If you win a role of the ballot argument and drop everything else, but the other team fails to impact the new role of the ballot, you'll win.

Politics: I like politics debates, actually. I just want framing arguments for how I should sort through the inevitable stacks of evidence (qualifications debates don't happen enough, for instance), and why different aspects of the argument should receive more or less emphasis (links v. uniqueness, or the political science of internal links etc).

K Affs: I will vote on framework, to be clear. But I have no predispositions against any affirmative position. I don't think the aff has an inherent obligation to have a plan text or even an advocacy statement. I think that is easily defensible. Again, much like comments on criticism, I want these arguments to be specific to the resolution in a sense: abstract framework debates are made interesting by focusing on what this means for the practice of debate in the context of the topic. This includes if you're an aff critiquing the topic.