Belanger,+Alexander

Strath Haven High School ’16 – three years of policy debate University of Pennsylvania ’20 – first year of non-policy college debate *If there is something I haven’t covered in my paradigm, or you don’t have time to read it fully, ask me before the round. *Yes, I’d like to be on the email chain if there is one. My email is alexander.b138@gmail.com.

I’ve done a fair bit of research on this topic, so I know a few things about the common affirmatives and off-case positions that are floating around. This topic has the potential to be incredibly broad, so there are some affirmatives where T seems extremely convincing. Yale will be my first tournament officially judging this year, although I have judged some practice debates for Strath Haven over the summer.
 * Notes on China Topic **

Run the arguments that you are the most comfortable with – I am looking to vote for the team that makes the best strategic arguments and decisions. Regardless of whether you read an aff that critically examines the topic or a traditional policy aff, clear explanation of exactly what the affirmative does will make it a much cleaner round with the least amount of intervention on my part. The same goes for the negative – if I don’t understand a part of the link story on the K/CP/DA, I will not vote for it. Be respectful and courteous of the other debaters in the room – do not be overly aggressive during CX. I understand the competitive drive to win the round, but when that drive manifests itself in aggressive actions, you will lose major speaker points.
 * Overview **

Quick answers: · Open CX is fine · I don’t take prep time for flashing · Go as fast as you can without sacrificing clarity – I will yell “clear” if I can’t understand you.


 * Specific Arguments **
 * Topicality**: typically undervalued in high school debate. My threshold for voting on T will likely be lower than most judges, providing you can flush out a compelling reason to vote. Don’t throw voters like “education” at me without articulating the reasons why education or fairness are important to the activity, and why I should be voting for them. Also, make sure you understand exactly what the affirmative does if you go for T, and create a nuanced violation by the negative block.


 * Disadvantages:** my most common 2nr in high school was DA and case. T hese debates are primarily won on the impact level – if you are not spending at least 30 seconds explaining how the DA outweighs/turns case in every speech (and probably more in the 2NR), you’re not creating a compelling framework for me to vote for the DA. Secondarily, make sure you explain how your warrants differ from the other teams – don’t pretend that tagline extensions answer their arguments.


 * Counterplans**: you must have a semi-decent solvency advocate in the 1NC. I know that your condition CPs and process CPs will most likely have very generic advocates, so make sure you explain precisely how they would interact with the affirmative by the 2NC.


 * Kritiks**: When I read Ks, I mostly read Marxism and Baudrillard, so I will be the most familiar with these arguments. I have a good grasp on postmodern theories, critical race theories, and securitization critiques. I do not have a good grasp on psychoanalysis or queer theory, so if that’s your thing, you will have to explain it very clearly.


 * Critical affirmatives**: I have a lot of experience debating against critical affirmatives – just like “traditional” affirmatives, they can be either quite good or quite bad. The best ones have a specific philosophical mechanism that indicates how the affirmative operates, typically in regards to the resolution. The worst ones are a bunch of critical authors thrown together to create absolutely nothing. Make sure you’re reading the former, and you should be good.

The common framework or method arguments are much less persuasive when you are interacting with the topic while reading a critical aff – you are welcome to read an aff that isn’t related to the topic at all, but know that the negative could have several quite persuasive arguments that you should be prepared for.


 * Theory: ** go for it, but make sure that you fully commit. Chances are you will not win a round where half your 2AR is condo and half of it is case outweighs vs the DA.

I was a 2N in high school, so I will likely be inclined to protect the 2NR by ignoring new 2AR arguments. This does not mean I will reject 2AR spin and cross-application, but the moment that it becomes an unpredictable argument or extension, it won’t be on my flow.
 * Random Thoughts **

Try to craft off-case strategies that don’t explicitly contradict.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Asking about preferred pronouns before the round seems to be a positive trend in debate. If someone accidentally misgenders another person in the round, please correct that person politely, and if necessary, communicate further with them after the debate.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Overviews should be short and should focus on the impact level on the debate – I believe this applies to DAs and case as well as Ks. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Your speaking style (tone of voice, speed, inflection, etc.) should not matter on my flow, but is undeniably important in your overall persuasiveness as a debater.