Yahom,+Jefferson

Name: Jefferson Yahom

Affiliation: University of Oklahoma,

Hey y'all, I'm ok at flowing and will do my best to keep up with what is going on. (really y'know, most people's flows are just OK). While debate techne is fine and dandy I don't think that necessarily makes a good debater. Good debaters start with good arguments that make sense and will explain how both sides interact and how their side is the awesome side that should win. The Affirmative should affirm something and the negative should find some point of contestation with what the Aff did or said. Simple as that. Prove competition and thus no perm for the Aff. Voila. Neg wins. And Aff, explain the perm, even if it is just "not mutually exclusive." That's how I see debate. That's the role of the Neg and the Aff. Framework? I guess I'd vote for it if the round came there. Topicality? same as above. BTW, the stuff above doesn't only pertain to K debate, a lot of it also applies to traditional policy debate.

Now onto other things: I don't think that presumption ever flips Aff. Neg perm is the biggest troll. On impacts to T and FW, it'd be really hard to convince me that X kind of Aff should never be allowed in debate unless it's blatantly offensive. Like, a T impact that says "no more performance/policy Affs ever" would be a pretty hard impact for me to vote on.

I am somewhat well read on philosophy, I am mostly familiar with Afro-pessimism and anti-colonialism, somewhat familiar with Lacan, somewhat familiar with Nietzsche, not very familiar with Deleuze and Guattari and only somewhat familiar with Queer theory/Feminism.

I think all debate is performance, policy debate too is performance. You can contest how I evaluate each performance.