Pujol,+Allison

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart ‘17 I’d like the speech docs – allison.m.pujol@gmail.com

Affirmative teams must defend an instance of topical action by the USFG – this means defending a plan text. Topicality and/or FW does not inflict any physical violence on anyone in the round. It is an argument in a debate round that the affirmative should defend the pre-determined resolution. Additionally, I am very persuaded that the argument that all of the aff’s offense against defending the topic can be resolved by reading their arguments on the neg.

Debate is the most enjoyable activity I have ever been a part of. I care a lot about it and about the people in it. Please make debate a welcome environment and respect everyone in the room. You can be assertive, but I won’t tolerate you being rude or antagonistic – and your speaker points will plummet.

**Topicality:** Topicality is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I’ll default to competing interpretations – reasonability is a hard sell to me. But all of that’s less true if your interpretation is clearly arbitrary and doesn’t solve limits (or if the aff wins that your interpretation only limits out one affirmative). Organization and explanation (impacting everything out just like you would if you were debating a DA) is key. These debates can get messy so the 2nr/2ar need to stay as flowable as possible – probably slow down.

**CPs**: Counterplans need to be functionally and textually competitive. I tend to be aff leaning with process CPs – If your CP tries to “compete” based on immediacy or certainty, it probably doesn’t compete. Additionally, if your counterplan leads to whatever the plan mandates, does it in some arbitrary way, or adds a part to the plan, I am likely to vote on the perm. Aff – winning a credible solvency deficit is important. If you are extending a permutation in the 1ar, it should be explained way beyond three words for me to evaluate it – what it does and how it shields the link, etc.

**Kritiks:** “It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death.” – Brett Bricker I’m not persuaded by “an individual debate round creates real-world change” args. I’ll vote on a kritik, but a) aff specific links are important – if your arguments can be applied to any aff, I will not find it persuasive and b) feasibility is too – if I don’t know what the alt does I’m going to vote for it. I don’t spend free time reading about philosophy, though, so explain the alt/links and be clear in CX before assuming I understand the 4-min overview’s references to ‘The Lack’ or ‘recurring hyper-fixation.’ As far as framework goes, I think the aff gets their aff and the neg gets a pragmatic alternative. I’ll be great for: Security, Cap/Neolib, Foucault, Agamben, Anthro, Pan If you run death good (or any of its derelict friends, re: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, Schopenhauer), I will vote for the other team.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**DAs:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">They’re intrinsic. I’m not sold by theory arguments on the DA so the neg shouldn’t waste too much time answering them. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Block/2nr impact calc is one of the most important things that determine how I will vote. I like debates where the 2nr is a DA with a CP that solves the case, but going for a DA and case as a status quo CP is just as good. My decision will be the easiest if you win that the disadvantage outweighs and controls a larger internal link to solving the aff impacts/advantages than the aff actually does. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">There can be 0% risk of an impact – don’t underestimate defense. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Might be an area of disagreement for some, but I think the politics link can be non-unique – it’s best if the 2ac reads a card on it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Condo – good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">PICs – good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Word PICs – usually bad <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">International / 50 state fiat – usually good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Agent CPs – good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Floating PIKs – bad <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">SPEC – set it up in cross-ex, or I won’t vote on these <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If it’s not conditionality, I’ll probably default to rejecting the argument, not the team. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Best of luck and have fun!