Klopp,+Alex

Name: Alex Klopp School: debated at Iowa City West High for four years (2008-2012). Now a freshman at Macalester College in St. Paul, MN Years in debate: 5 Number of Rounds on Transportation topic: 20

__Short version__ Run whatever you reasonably think to be the most effective way to win the round for yourself. Always prioritize strategy and the bigger picture. Go as fast as you want while still being persuasive and clear. I am new to the 2012-13 topic, so make sure you don't assume I know every acronym/term of art. In order to impress me, you must be both technically proficient and have solid research to back it up. Creativity and strategy are the most important, yet worst-executed, parts of debate. Offensive arguments will never receive my ballot (sexism, racism, the likes).

__Long Version__ Case debate -My 2NCs were almost always at least 5 minutes of case. I put EXTREMELY high value on engaging the affirmative. If you do this well, there is no better way to earn high speaks and my ballot. Seriously -- there's a reason this is the first thing I talk about in my philosophy. -Nothing pleases me more than an unexpected impact turn. Get creative.

T -Not the biggest fan of generic T-arguments. That being said, if you do it well and it's your best option, don't let me stop you from going for it. -I'm often persuaded by reasonability, but only in situations where more than just a block is read. Core of the topic discussions are extremely important in this context, especially at the beginning of the season and with someone like me who doesn't know much about the specifics. -Evidence is important. If you highlight random parts of a definition to exclude the aff, you're probably going to lose that competing interpretation is good. Do your research; if the lit isn't there, your T-argument might not be true.

Theory -I think I'm part of a generation/year of debaters more keen on voting for theory, and I think/hope the entire debate community is shifting towards this. Don't be afraid to go for this in front of me. -Theory was one of my favorite debates to have. Write your own blocks; understand the argument so you don't need them. Few things are worse than a bad theory debate; few things are better than a good one. -Multiple conditional advocacies are probably bad, but almost exclusively if the two are in direct contradiction of one another. -Things that are probably not a reason to reject the team: perm theory, neg fiat, politics DA theory, vagueness, most K-alt theory (notably excluding the floating PIK). This all being said, these arguments are often extremely strategic and you shouldn't hesitate to go for them. -Biggest mistake ever made on theory: not impacting the argument well. This means explaining your education/fairness claims IN CONTEXT and explaining what I should do if you win your arguments. -You should ALWAYS have an interpretation that allows you to avoid the opponents best offense. If you don't do this (i.e. our interp is "condo is bad"), it will be tough to win. -Do not speed-read blocks to me. I will visibly and vehemently put my pen down and stare at you until the block is over.

CPs (straight licked/pasted from Matt Harkins) -I think that my specific views on what counterplans are legitimate are irrelevant. I'm willing to reject any counterplan if a team can't justify what they ran. The reverse is also true: I'm willing to vote for counterplans that the aff can't delegitimize. -Condition/consult has its place but I'd rather not hear them too often. -Solvency advocates are a must. Aff teams should make arguments about what it means to have a solvency advocate. -I won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless the negative persuades me otherwise. I noticed this seems to be a become a big deal at camp. Persuading me to kick the counterplan for you isn't hard. It would be very hard to persuade me that the negative should lose because they defended "judge kick" in 1NC cross-x. -Perms need net benefits.

DAs -Just like kritiks, the best disads interact well or are specific to the case. Topic disads (withdrawal DA, weaponization) for the past few years have been extremely interesting/fun because of how well they implicate the cases they are read against. -Politics can be great and awful. Things like Jackson-Vannick and LOST are very susceptible to "no brink" arguments for me; things like healthcare and START were what I mean when I say great. -I would like to see more debates about intrinsicness in the politics DA. It's definitely not unwinable, but I have yet to see it debated into the 1ar and beyond. -I think link can control uniqueness or the other way around - it probably depends on the disad. However, for each respective disad, one of these things is probably True.

Kritiks -I have read a lot of literature and debated a wide variety of kritiks, from cap or security to Nietzsche or the Tao. Don't be afraid to read Ks in front of me if it is the most strategic option for yourself. -If you are really into critical literature, don't obsess yourself with Baudrilliard or crap like that. READ TOPIC CRITICAL LITERATURE. There are always extremely specific well-written kritiks on each topic. Biopower was in my 2NR in basically every round on the social services topic, but in a modified form depending on the aff. Finding these are not only fun for me to watch, but more fun for you to debate. -Substantive framework is way more important than theoretical framework. Don't get bogged down, I'm probably going to end up weighing the aff impacts against the neg impacts through whatever lens I decide via substantive framework. -Kritikal affs are very interesting and appealing to me, given that they specific to the topic (shoutout to Noah/Bomber/DGobbs for having the best K-aff in history #cyborgs4lyfe). Whether or not they can be topical, or what it means to be topical, should be debated. -2ACs need to be just as specific as the 1NCs. As Matt Harkins put it, " Realism, Jarvis, and Owen don't answer every kritik." -Floating PIKs: I don't think an argument is strategic if it's sole avenue to being strategic is you being shady. Floating PIKs can be good arguments and can be theoretically defended - you you're going to do it, be upfront about it.

Non-traditional Debate -You are probably fine preffing me. I am open to all arguments in this realm and definitely will not default to "no plantext = no jurisdiction to vote for you". -Framework is great if you're aff, but not necessarily devastating if you're neg. Topicality and what it means to be topical should be debated in the round. -Never ran this, only debated it a few times. I had both the pleasure of debating Beacon DF and the displeasure of debating a few Baudrilliard nontraditional affs. Don't get me wrong, it's all interesting in it's own way, but I think you'll have an easier job beating framework if there is a real issue that is being ignored (race, sexism, homophobia, the likes - not how we're all living a simulation). -Often the best way to use framework isn't as a theoretical "reject the team" claim, but as a way to get access to substantive ground elsewhere in the debate. Be creative, make connections. -The best neg strategy in front of me will probably be some sort of counter-kritik or a direct engagement of the performance/project. DO YOUR RESEARCH, be prepared. -I will do my best to update this portion of my philosophy as I learn more about how I judge these types of debates. If you are reading this bullet point, I haven't judged any of these rounds yet.

Other -Don't stress about computer issues - if you have them, tell me and I won't take prep or anything. -I don't have a specific scale of deciding speaker points. I will decide them based on how well you performed the following, in order of importance: strategic choices, speaking style/ability, execution, humor/ethos. -Ethics violations - this is a very tricky issue and hopefully it won't happen too often. I was always very frustrated when this did occur and even more so when judges didn't do anything. I will do my best to decide fairly if there is enough evidence to consider an ethics violation. It is your job to present this evidence to me (outside of preptime/cross-x time; just speak up after a speech). There are various ways to do this - please talk to your coach and practice this. If I decide there is no ethics violation after evidence has been provided, it will not effect the outcome of the debate nor the speaker points of either team. Please do not abuse this. -Debate is a speaking activity, and I hate calling for cards. I would often read lines of cards to my judges in my 2ARs and 2NRs. If you want me to read something, tell me (but don't disappoint me with hyperbole). If I call for cards, it's probably because I want to read the evidence out of my own interest, not because I need it to make a decision. -Stop reading speech docs and and start flowing. One of my favorite quotes is from a certain Tim Alderete and goes, "SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND FLOW." -Be professional. I'm more likely to take you seriously if you make an attempt to look good. Style is important to me - I might even bump you up .1 speaks if you seriously impress me (very rare).