Witaszek,+Kendall

Kendall Witaszek, former debater at the University of Minnesota (NDT '14) Previously attended New Trier High School Coach at Minneapolis South Email kendallwitaszek@gmail.com if you have questions


 * Re: China**-- I led a lab at Northwestern over the summer, so I probably know the basics of what you are talking about, but I may not know all the abbreviations/acronyms out there.

__**Super short version**:__ Read what you want in front of me, my argument styles have been on both sides of the spectrum (policy in high school and kritikal in college). That being said, things like patriarchy/racism good will **not** be voted on if I am in the back of the room. I have read both plan-based policy affirmatives and kritikal, non-plan-based affirmatives, as well as a large selection of arguments on the neg. I am open to listening to and voting on a wide range of arguments. You do you.

__**Relatively short version:**__ **Kritiks:** I love a good K debate and strayed toward these arguments during the latter part of my debate career, but that does not mean I am automatically going to vote neg on the K, or that you should read a K just because I am judging; I have voted both ways in these debates. If you want to go for a K, make sure that I know what the alternative is and how it is able to resolve the links (if you plan to go for the alt; that being said, the alt isn't always necessary to win the round.) Like any argument, you should have a strong understanding of your K if you want to go for it (this is especially true in novice debate) so that you can rely on substance. The team that does a better job talking about the K in the context of the aff tends to be in a preferable position at the end of the debate. Neg, contextualize links to the aff, explain why the alt solves them, and discuss how your strategy implicates the case -- people tend to take these things for granted. Aff, make sure to answer specific links, put ink on the alt, and have a good defense of your epistemology/methodology/etc if possible. If the neg authors or concepts are in tension with one another, point that out and explain how that is the case and why it is important.

 **Non-traditional affirmatives**: __You do you__. Yes, I will vote for these; in fact, they tend to be my favorite affs to judge and I believe that many of them are super important for debate. However, I will vote neg if the neg wins the flow (granted that it is not on an incredibly offensive impact turn, as previously noted). So, if framework is your thing against these affs, you do you. If the Cap K is your thing against these affs, you do you. If Puar is your thing against these affs, you do you . Etcetera. I automatically assume the ROB is to vote for who does the best debating (other ROB claims tend to seem very arbitrary to me, and rarely have an impact extended to them), but if you have one, explain what the ROB means (it is functionally impact framing, so explain why yours is preferable). That being said, if going for "they dropped our ROB and that's important because X" is your thing, then do that; I can be persuaded.

**Theory**: Slow down on your theory shells if you want the potential to be able to win on them, and focus more on contextualizing and impacting out a few key arguments rather than having a shallow, ten-subpoint list why something is awful or great. I tend to think that conditionality is good, but can be convinced otherwise. Aff, point out if there was clear in-round abuse or if you have a specific articulation of potential abuse in context of what the negative did (i.e. did they read a Cap K and a privatization CP that they can cross-apply your offense from? Why is that bad?). Win the internal links to get to your impacts.

**CP’s**: I lean aff on many process CP’s, but can be persuaded otherwise. Aff, please point out that the CP links to the net benefit when it does—this is often neglected. Neg, let me know how to frame the CP vs. the aff. A smart 2A will often sit hard on the permutation (there are obviously many exceptions), and a smart 2N will be able to predict this and have several DA's to doing so.

**Disads**: There can be a very small risk of a DA, but there can also be a very small risk of case. Turns case analysis (not just of impacts, but also of internal link scenarios), especially on the novice level, is often neglected—make it, and you’ll be rewarded. You need specific links to the affirmative. These debates often come down to weighing case impacts versus the DA's impact. I don’t really buy politics theory, but if it's dropped then that can be problematic for the neg.

**Topicality**: Reasonability means that your counter-interpretation is reasonably topical, not your aff. Make clear impact/standard claims, and do not neglect to provide a caselist and topical version of the affirmative if that jives with your argument. Offense, offense, offense. Win the impact level, not just the internal link level.

**Impact turns:** I love a good de-dev debate.

__**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Do: **__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">-Make jokes/have fun (but don't be mean!) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">-Flow **-** that includes speeches after your last one! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">-Make smart cross-applications and concessions

__**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Don't: **__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">-misidentify people. I will vote on "microaggressions bad." <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">-be rude to myself, your opponents, or your partner. As I said above, I will vote on "microaggressions bad." <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">-steal prep - seriously, I know that it is happening.