Rafey,+Will

I don't have any substantive preferences that should impact the way in which you normally debate -- just do what it is that you do to win rounds. I tend to err towards teams that do substantial and intelligent impact calculus that starts early in the debate, whether that's impact calc on a politics disad, the k, theory, topicality, or framework. Comparative analysis is perhaps the single most important part of debate, and teams that do it well will be rewarded.

I absolutely love debate, and while I am not currently debating at Harvard, I debated in high school for Bellarmine. That doesn't mean you can't win if you have a nuanced epistemology argument that implicates debate as an activity -- it just means you should explain it well. Performance must involve at least some form of intelligible argument.

Some specifics, if they are helpful:


 * Topicality** -- maybe it's because I was a 2a, but I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. is w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria)


 * Counterplans** -- a crucial component of negative strategy that can provide the neg essential leverage, but also risk conditions for clear abuse. Case-specific PICs are fantastic, but consult NATO is kind of a joke.


 * Ks** -- when well-explained, they can be very fun to judge. The best K's, in my opinion, often center around questions of power, ethics, and epistemology/knowledge production. They also tend to be case or topic-specific. I'm therefore less likely to vote on K's that boil down to Dillon 99 or Zimmerman 94. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly capitalism, environmental k's, and critical IR, but I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation: I will not vote against a team for an argument I can't explain to them. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making.


 * Theory** -- these debates can be quite intriguing, especially good permutation and counterplan theory, but they generally are un-educational (perhaps a reason why theory isn't always a voting issue...). I do not want a very good debate to be decided on severance. If you read your theory blocks too unintelligibly for me to flow them, then I most likely will not vote on them.

In particular, I pretty much agree with Rajesh:

Really bad: multi-actor fiat, consult, condition, delay, 2NC uniqueness CPs, utopian fiat, floating PICs, PICs without solvency advocates Kinda bad: 2nc CP's, word PICs, international fiat, multiple conditional worlds, states Probably fine: condo, dispo, PICs with solvency advocates Your speaker points will probably suffer if you attempt to go for something silly like no neg fiat or FSPEC, even if you're debating a team that's confused

Finally, I think one of the most fantastic things about debate is the research. The best debates are always those that center around good case-specific research, and I enjoy them the most. However, it should be clear that while I have heard a few debates on this topic (in the Boston Urban Debate League and at the Cal camp) I know very little about the way the topic has evolved. This means that you should be explicit about distinctions you're making and not assume that I simply know the intricacies of social service policy.