Straus,+Sander

About me – I have debated for 4 years for The Meadows School in Las Vegas, NV. I have only debated policy affs, and am not a huge fan of K affs.

__ How to win in front of me: __ -– explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win — you can convince me an argument is good in many ways —> cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, etc. –– explain net benefits to CPs and how the CP solves the aff —> I won't do this for you via my flows

__ Specific arguments: __ —DAs - please explain the link, people tend to read DAs with terrible link evidence and tend to not explain it. I'm not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args–you should be explaining the link in that time. TURNS CASE IS IMPORTANT. If the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and just spends like 3 minutes doing amazing explanation, its almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments. —PTX - I think it's one of the worst arguments in debate. it can easily be defeated by affirmative arguments about the illegitimacy of political capital or the low quality of negative evidence. that being said, sometimes the negative wins by out-teching the aff. —CPs - theory is really really important, because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. in particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirely of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. Explain how the CP solves the aff. If you read Lopez, you better win theory. —T -I love T. You explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Why is your interp of the topic better? Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - i think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument. —Ks - not a huge fan. I have been more policy than critical in my debate career. Explanation is very important so I can understand your K. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. FW // can // be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out. —Theory - conditionality is good, dispo is better. Neg – provide a C/I and explain why that's the best way to frame debate. Aff – explain the in-round abuse and why your interp. is the best for debate. Explain terminal impacts to condo and why that hurts debate. —FW - not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework, fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. K teams will ALWAYS have more game on the education front. —No plan aff's - again, not a huge fan. That being said, I'm still open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be. Make sure you explain the world of the aff and what it looks like.

__ Extras: __ – There is nothing I love more than fun, challenging debates. BE FUNNY, but still be smart. I enjoy witty humor more than nonsense.