Kollar,+Louie

I debated four years at New Trier high school, locally and nationally and went to the TOC my senior year (2015-2016). Now I go to Indiana University (Go Hoosiers) where I major in philosophy and economic consulting.

Update Mapple 2017

-Debate with what your best at not with what you think I'll like most. -I’ll vote on anything aside for obviously repugnant arguments -Tech>Truth -Zero risk is absolutely a thing -I'm very open to changing all of the defaults below -If your not sure about reading something/my stance on something, just ask
 * __Overview__**:

-This is how I debated and I won't hack for it but I'll admit that I really like seeing it done well (and really do not like seeing it done poorly) -Impact calc and framing are your important and overlooked, have them in the front of your mind from before the round starts until the end of the 2AR. -Creativity is underused here nuanced internal links are something I'll appreciate. -Good cards>>> -Default to uniqueness controls direction of the link -Default to condo doesn't mean judge kick -Default to fiat is certain immediate and durable -Default to perm=test of competition -Strong default to 1AR add-ons and 2NR cards being theoretically legitimate
 * __Policy args__**

-Ks can be cool -Have read/understand the stock Ks like anthro, cap, race, fem, security etc. -Do not fully understand the other pomo stuff, but I've voted for it in the past so if you explain it well then you'll be fine, but you should explain it like your talking someone who doesn't know any of the jargon and hasn't read any of the source material. -Frameworks are often generic or underexplained, you'll be rewarded if yours isn't
 * __K__**

-Understand basic gist of most arguments your making, a moderate amount of jargon is fine -Assume that you've read more of the source material then I have -These debates usually devolve to analytics, if that is the case then please slow down, explain and weigh otherwise the debate becomes extremely hard to resolve -Cards still come before analytics but it matters way less in these debates/I'm open to evaluating them equally if you make a good argument for it. -Open to evaluating with ethical modesty or whatever it's called now -If the FW debate is irresolvable I default to going to the contention rather then presumption unless you make an argument otherwise. -If you read cards from Allen Wood (Kantian, one of my professors) it'll make me smile
 * __Phil/FW__**

-Down for some tricks but I have mixed feelings on them -The best tricks are when your opponent doesn't realize that you're running tricks until after you deploy them and they realize that there's no way for them to win anymore. If you do that well then your speaks will be really good. -Skep, a prioris, other NIBs, Nailbombs etc. are less interesting just because of how often they're run but if you debate them well then I'll probably enjoy the debate. -"Tricks" that are just like ten NIBs and then fifteen reasons why fairness isn't a voter usually lead extremely tedious and awful debates to watch. Obviously, that doesn't mean I'd intervene against you but I'll be extremely frustrated.
 * __Tricks__**

-Definitely okay with you reading theory purely for the strategic reason, and not because your opponent was actually abusive. -Would prefer your interp doesn't create a completely ridiculous norm like spec-ing types or competing interps or announcing brackets. -I usually err slightly towards the counter interp unless something ridiculous happens (e.g. four condo) -I think theory debates are seldom developed well enough for them to be a good 2AR or 2NR so if I were you I’d err towards going for substance. Having said that if you really want to go for theory because that’s what you’re good at and you think you’re winning then godspeed to you. -I'm a big fan of T, it's usually far better developed, related to the topic, predictable, and much more likely to have the debate be interesting or meaningful. This means I’m much more likely to enjoy voting on a really stupid T interp (T-In=Throughout, T-Or=And etc.) than really stupid theory interps. -I'm fine with you reading theory like they do in policy and just putting it on the flow where it applies (e.g. condo bad on the CP page). -Default to competing interps, no RVI, drop the debater, fairness and education are voters.
 * __Theory__**

__**Intentionally Not Topical Affs vs. T/Framework**__ -I will not intervene or hack against these Affs, but every time I debated one of these affs I read framework and went for it. I think it's by far the best strategy. I'm probably better for the NEG. -Having said that, in all the rounds I've judged with a non-T aff vs. framework aff has a winning record (by a very narrow margin), so you can absolutely win with these positions in front of me. -I view the TVA like a counterplan and a disad meaning that the TVA doesn't necessarily need to solve all (or really any) of the impacts out of the AFF for framework to outweigh it but if it does solve the AFF then the debate is pretty much over. -If you're reading an AFF like this and want to outweigh a good 2NR on framework then it’s pretty crucial to me that you win that there’s a real problem with debate/debaters/us as people that you can actually resolve, it’s definitely not impossible to do that I just don’t know that it’s done very often (like twice in high school LD off the top of my head).

-**Speed** is fine, yes I’ll say clear, slow, repeat, loud and anything else you want me to say (if it's a panel I'll only say it twice). If you’re blitzing through a shit ton of one sentence “arguments” I’m just not going to be able to flow them all so, please either read more developed arguments or slow down. -**Extensions:** Very low threshold. If an argument is conceded then just "extend [tag of arg]" is sufficient. You don't need to extend interps or plan texts or stuff like that. If arguments are answered use your extension to compare warrants and weigh rather then to just reiterate the card. -**Evidence Ethics:** Clipping is bad and justifies a loss, don't clip cards. If you're careful and honest this shouldn't be a problem. I think theory on a lack of citations is extremely persuasive and I can't think of a good response to it. -**Speaks**: I think I use the same scale that everyone else uses. 30s are really hard to get and reserved for exceptional rounds. I do give low point wins. You make your speaks go up by making the debate more interesting for me, the best way to this is by reading a good strategy and executing it well. Much easier ways to do it include: making fun of anyone from or related to New Trier (especially Nicki Kacena, Megan Nubel and Jonathan Horowitz), Making references to rap music or sports, be funny, be confident, be friendly. Also, If you're a TOC level debater and are debating a novice, win the debate in a way that's as educational for them as possible to make your speaks go up. If you run up the score/act like an asshole/intentionally obfuscate things your speaks will be way worse then they should be. -**Judges I liked/agree with (not exhaustive):** Bob Overing, Carlos Taylor, Chris Theis, John Scoggin, Alex Tisher, Chris Castillo, Adam Tomasi (sorta), Bailey Rung and Jane Brennan (One teammate of mine had a huge crush on her though so I didn’t like her as much as he did).
 * __Miscellaneous stuff__**
 * -Disclosure:** I disclosed everything on open source and I think you should too. If you disclose your positions and the first three last three of every card then that's fine. If you do nothing or disclose in a way that's intentionally incomplete or confusing and aren't new to debate then expect an uphill battle against disclosure theory. You also should disclose which aff (unless new) and past 2NRs before the round, or again I'm receptive to theory.
 * -Flashing/passing/email:** If you’re reading off a computer I’d like for you to email your cards/interps/plan texts to your opponents and me (lekollar@gmail.com). If the Wi-Fi is down, or slow then I'll just get them after the debate If you’re reading off paper, then you have to pass them to your opponent.
 * -Prep**: Prep ends when the speech doc is done, that means if you’re compiling stuff from different places then you have to take prep.