Shore,+Sam


 * Sam Shore**

I debated in high school at Greenhill School in Texas, and have recently finished debating four years at Michigan State. A fair number of the assumptions that one would draw about me being affiliated with those institutions are probably true.

Case Debates – Case debate is underutilized in high school debate, there are few things that I am more impressed with than beating a team on their own aff. Although, too many teams gloss over the fact that there needs to be uniqueness for neg case turns.

Disads – Defensive arguments are important, and I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad if the affirmative has damning defensive arguments even if the affirmative lacks any offensive arguments. Negatives who rely on there always being a risk of a link will leave me unimpressed. That being said though, I often think that many times a lack of offense does result in a high probability of the disad.

Kritiks – Framework arguments are important, the 1nc should be setting up the role of the ballot for the negative it shouldn’t be a 2nc response to fiat good. Teams must articulate an impact to what happens if they win their framework arguments. I don’t think the negative must have an alternative but I find it hard for the neg to establish uniqueness for their links without one. Affirmatives need to find ways to leverage their aff against the implications of the kritik as well as making sure that they are still able to access their offense if they lose their framework arguments. Negs must also discuss why the aff makes the squo worse, not merely why biopower or cap or patriarchy is bad. I’m certainly not well versed in much kritik literature so avoiding buzzwords and jargon can help my understanding. I would rather be judging a CP/DA strategy than a kritik debate but I find myself voting neg oftentimes when judging kritiks simply because affirmatives often mishandle them (like dropping alt solves the aff, or ontology first).

CPs – I lean negative on most CP theory issues (more on theory below), although I’m not a fan of the consult cp. Although, this does not mean that affs cannot win theory debates in front of me. Additionally I think some of the arguments that affs make as to why some counterplans are bad, tend to be much better when used as a reason why the permutation is legitimate. Negs should be sure to weigh what happens when there is a solvency deficit to the cp when making their impact calculus arguments.

Topicality – I tend to view T debates in an offense/defense framework. Its all about competing interpretations, whomever creates the best world for debate should win, issues of abuse are not necessary but can be helpful. No, your K aff's impact turn of T does not amuse me - you need to be topical.

Theory – I lean neg on most theory questions but this is not to be taken to mean that I like to hear your XYZ-Spec argument, your points will go down. Conditionality is no worse than dispositionality and both are good, so are PICs. The caveat to this is that I'm not sure if I'm a fan of conditional counterplans with half a dozen planks each independently conditional (ie 2nr could be planks 1-6, or 1-3, or 1&3, etc.). This doesn’t mean I won’t vote aff on theory though, whomever can make their trivial distinctions seem most important will probably win. Comparisons between aff and neg args are a must – just re-reading your theory block in the 2nr/2ar will not win you a debate.

Non-traditional affs – I’ve debated at Greenhill and Michigan State, if that doesn’t provide some hint, I’ll break it down some more. The Aff should probably be topical, probably have a plan, and probably also have to defend the effects stemming from the hypothetical enactment of said plan - I've yet to be convinced by a reason as to why any of these things are bad.

Side Notes: All of this being said – I will evaluate the arguments made in the round even if they are contrary to my beliefs, this is a guide of what I think and how I will default with a lack of argumentation. Evidence comparisons are important, Impact comparisons as well. There needs to be a decision calculus set up in the final rebuttals – i.e. you can still win the round even after admitting a solvency deficit to your CP. After the round if I need to see cards I will ask, don’t volunteer them. I’m only going to flow what the person who should be speaking says, if your partner yells out an argument during your speech, you have not made it.