Baubonis,+Mitchell


 * Last Updated:** 10-18-15

__**Bio:**__ I spent 3 years debating for Homestead High School in Mequon WI, serving as captain my senior year. I’m currently in my first year debating on the college circuit for the University of Minnesota Twin-Cities, attending the Carlson school of Management with a major in Marketing.

__**My Paradigm:**__ Being from WI, I’m more of a conservative old school PURE policy judge, meaning I look at debate from a standpoint of me being the president, choosing the best policy for the United States to enact. Don’t take this the wrong way-I’m willing to listen to anything you have to read. Being a college debater means I have to argue both for and against a lot of stuff I’m not very familiar with. If it’s something that goes a bit outside the policy realm, just be willing to slow down and explain //WHY// I should go outside my comfort zone and vote for you.

__**Specifics:**__


 * Speed** – Debating on the college circuit has made me more and more comfortable with speed. That said, I view speed as a tool to effectively push more evidence and scholarship into your speech, NOT to “drop the tub” or “carpet bomb” your opponents into oblivion. The difference between those two is key. If you want to go 8 off in the 1NC, that’s great. Just be sure that you’re prepared to crystallize it for me at the end of the round and don’t pull it all through the block. As far as the rebuttals go, I would say it does more harm than good when it comes to your overall impacts and the strength of your arguments. That said, there are times when speed is necessary, such as during close debates when you need to pack in as much analysis as you can on your key issues, and I get that. Just try to be economical with your words and use your best judgement.


 * CPs** – 2 words: NET BENEFIT. If you can prove to me the CP can stand on its own, capture the affs solvency, and solve any disadvantage to the plan, then great. Please note that “stand on its own” means just that. At the end of the day I’d rather vote for one plan that has a risk of solving the 1AC rather than 3 separate CPs that do essentially the same thing. Here are my thoughts on specific CP types:
 * **//Consult CPs//** - Net Ben is big here. Prove to me there is a VERY important reason that we need to consult. There also can’t be any doubt whether they’ll say yes, otherwise I won’t give you access to Aff advantages.
 * //**PICs**// – 2 more words FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION. There needs to be a significant functional reason that the perm severs out of the plan text.
 * //**Condition CPs**// - Try to keep the text short. I won’t vote on any CPs that have more than 4 planks, no matter how much theory you read.


 * Ks** - Despite my paradigm, I will vote on a lot of Ks. There are 3 things I need to do that though:
 * 1) I need a POLICY alternative, NOT reject the aff. The ONLY time when I consider reject the aff a sound alternative is when the opposing team has said something offensive in round (i.e. Ableist, Sexist, Racist, or Vulgar). If this does happen, don’t feel that you can turn this into an ad hominem debate, tell me why their language hurts their case and why I should reject it.
 * 2) I need proper impact calculus done against the case. I find it difficult to weigh the abstract impacts that are sometimes proposed by kritiks on their own, and this troubles me because a lot of k teams just say the impact is a "prior question" and they don't need to weigh the case against it, which muddles the debate because then it shifts all the discussion away from aff impacts, and almost completely onto the k. I really dislike this because then I don't know what I'm voting for and why anymore. If the 1AC is irrelevant then why do we have it? It's because the negatives need to weigh their off-case arguments from the impacts read in it.
 * 3) I need to be able to understand it. Don’t just speed through a bunch of philosophy and metaphors and expect me to know what it means. Analyze the evidence and tell the story.


 * Theory** - I will ONLY vote on theory when you can prove abuse in the round. Potential abuse isn’t a voter. You also need clear interpretations set as well, showing a bright line to why whatever happened was abusive. One exception to this rule is Condo. As far as condo goes, It's a necessary mechanic that allows the Negatives to test the plan and decide what they're going to go for in the rebuttals. Just don’t come out of the block with 3 conditional CPs and 2 Disads and decide to kick out of them in the 2NR. This goes along with my CP thing from above, I will not vote on multiple CPs, you get one advocacy, that’s my standard on multiple worlds. //To clarify, You can run multiple CPs in the constructives, but you should only go for one CP in the 2NR. If you try to go for everything, I will still only vote on one CP. The aff only gets one plan text, and I'm sure that they would be able to make the same case for 3 separate aff plans that encapsulated advantages separately from their case along with the Net Benefit, so I find multiple worlds abusive in this respect.//


 * Topicality** - Don’t go for it unless the plan is clearly untopical and you have a list of arguments you couldn’t have read along with a case list. Prove to me that their interpretation of the resolution is abusive specifically in the context of this round.


 * Open/"Tag-Team" CX** - Absolutely. I think closed CX impedes the ability of both teams to analyze each others arguments effectively. That said, KEEP IT CIVIL. I do flow CX and pay attention to it, even though it rarely affects my decision. If you come off as overly aggressive or confrontational in CX, don't expect to be receiving good speaks. I don't care if you're the best speaker I've ever seen. Being aggressive in CX is unprofessional and ruins the activity for newcomers.