Kallis,+Leo

Policy Debate

I believe myself to be a tab ras judge. I have voted for numerous arguments that I deplore because the opposing team answered them poorly. I dislike excessive speed. I also dislike over-reactions that slow the round down to the pace of a three year old being told a bedtime story. Follow John Wooden’s advice: “Be quick but never hurry.”

On to the most Sisyphean part of this entry: Topicality

I believe that I have heard T run in nearly every round that I have judged. It has been run and answered well in about 15% of those rounds. In 65% of the rounds, the T arguments have been mind-numbing. The remaining 20% of the rounds have had the salubrious effect of making me less fearful of death because I came to the conclusion that death offers a release from poorly run and even more poorly answered T.

Preferably, T should be run to check in-round abuse. Sadly, it is frequently run as a free argument that usually can’t be turned. If there is no in-round abuse, I am open to Affs running arguments that a Neg’s abuse of T can be a reverse voter.

Case Arguments:

I believe solvency is the fundamental question of most policy debate rounds. Does the case solve the harms it outlines? If so, does it outweigh the Neg's impacts or make plan worth the risk? If the round takes a critical, solvency may be less of an issue.

DAs

Please tell a clear story. Generics are fine

Kritiks

I believe that the rationale underpinning the resolution, cases, and negative arguments can be attacked critically. The K should be structured, flowable, and explained clearly. Create a clear framework to explain why the K's worldview should precede the realpolitik advocated by the policy worldview

LD Debate