Chen,+Aaron

Kinkaid 2007-’11 Emory 2011-
 * Background:**

I don't debate anymore, but debated for four years at The Kinkaid School. However, for the current topic, I am not that familiar with the intricacies and specific arguments. This shouldn’t deter you from reading any particular argument, but be sure to slow down and explain specific T violations, counterplans, and case turns. In other words, don’t expect me to know all the random acronyms and hyper-specific mechanisms associated with the topic.


 * General:**

- Debates are won and lost on the flow. Arguments only count if there is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Thus, please refrain from just extending taglines without explaining why those arguments are true and/or important. - Debate is a game. Take this to mean that you can read any argument as long as you can defend it from any angle. - Technical debate precedes “truth” every time. - Evidence is very important, but I can still be persuaded by smart analytical arguments. Evidence is not a substitute for explanation; I’ll only call for cards if they are connected to warranted and impacted arguments. - Ethos/argument framing are also very important and can tie-breakers in close situations. - Cross-x is extremely important and very under-utilized many times. I don’t necessarily prescribe to the thought that cross-x is a speech, but it can certainly be used to make speeches much better and make your arguments more persuasive.


 * Disadvantages:**

Read them…always. Having specific links can only help you. Impact calculus is VERY important (magnitude, TF, probability, etc). DA turns the case arguments can become crucial tiebreakers in close debates. Please refrain from saying “if everyone dies, the plan doesn’t happen” and that vein of nonsense. Not much else to say here…

For the aff: Too many teams rely on impact defense to answer DAs without putting up big fights on the link or uniqueness levels. Many times the link or uniqueness components of a DA can be the weakest parts so try to make answers accordingly.


 * Counterplans:**

My favorite type of counterplans are PICs specific to a plan mechanism (in other words, not generic topic PICs or word PICs). Advantage counterplans with comparative evidence to the aff’s internal link are also a personal favorite. Specific conditions and consult counterplans can be interesting, although theory and competition are definitely concerns and I tend to lean slightly aff on those questions. Please refrain from generic process counterplans without good solvency advocates – nobody wants to hear those debates.

Theory considerations – most of these are just reasons to reject the argument, but any of these can be a VI if a clear abuse story is articulated or some sort of precedent argument is made (for example, vote against this CP to send a clear signal to the community that this CP or practice is bad). A) __Conditionality__: I can be persuaded to vote aff on conditionality when there contradictory worlds and/or so many worlds that it makes being aff impossible, etc. That being said, I still lean negative on conditionality and multiple worlds especially if the aff can’t articulate an abuse story. B) __CPs that do the entire aff (consult, conditions, etc):__ These can be both competitive and theoretically legitimate. That being said, the aff can still win on the permutation or theory. A lot of time needs to be dedicated to these issues if you read these CPs and the aff should hunker down on theory or the perm early on if that what the 2AR is going to be. As always, specific consult or conditions CPs with evidence specific to the plan are always good... C) __PICs:__ having a solvency advocate is important for theory considerations. D) __Agent CPs:__ These really only compete if the aff specifies an agent. I lean negative on theory questions, but these aren’t really competitive if the aff just defends the USFG in its entirety. I guess I can be persuaded otherwise, but it would require evidence and some good explanation. F) __International fiat:__ it's fine - just have a solvency advocate and be willing to hunker down on theory. G) __Solvency advocates:__ you probably need one.

For the aff: Solvency deficits should be well-developed starting from the 2AC. Please don’t make 100 blippy permutations – it’s impossible to flow and usually many of them are repetitive or make no sense. This also goes for theory arguments – the 2AC doesn’t need to be 30 seconds on any theory argument, but you should still slow down and develop these arguments especially if they are going to be extended.


 * Kritiks**:

Read them, but please be specific -- generic kritik debates are boring and the affirmative usually wins. Don’t assume I know every kritik author, stay away from buzzwords, and use speech time to explain the story of whatever kritik you’re reading. That being said, the most enjoyable kritik debates are when the negative makes their links and turns case arguments as specific as possible. Also, cheating and the K go hand-in-hand – so, do it much as possible without making the debate an incoherent cocktail of 10 different criticisms. Lastly, don’t forget about the alternative and/or the role of the ballot – make sure to explain why it solves the K impacts and the aff.

For the aff: I’m sympathetic to most negative framework arguments (we get the alt, we get the link, etc), but I’m usually persuaded by the “middle ground” argument that the aff should be allowed to weigh the implications of the 1AC if the aff defends the truth claims of their advantages.


 * Topicality/Procedurals/Theory:**

I have no problem voting on T or theory – just make sure explain your interpretation and impact it. Evidence is very useful in T debates. Don’t just read interpretation evidence – read impact evidence that illustrates why the aff undermines education, kills fairness, etc. Procedural arguments I don’t like include ASPEC, OSPEC, and most of the other SPECs. This is not to say I haven’t voted on these things before, but I just have a higher threshold of arguments like these. However, please don’t say that new affs are bad…just don’t. It’s just really dumb and makes everyone very sad. (New affs also aren’t a reason why 5 conditional worlds or ridiculously abusive CPs are suddenly legitimate.)

For the aff: Most 2ACs are very blippy and under-developed on answering these types of arguments. Slow down on your we-meet arguments and have well-developed reasons why your counter-interpretation is superior. Furthermore, A we-meet argument is offensive – it just means that you solve the neg’s offense.

Additionally, I have found that I usually just default to a competing interpretations framework mainly because the aff’s reasonability arguments are incredibly blippy in the 2AC. If you really think you’re aff is reasonable and are willing to invest in warranting arguments as to why I shouldn’t default to a competing interpretations framework, then I’m all ears. To me, reasonability just means that as a community, we should be willing to hear affs that may be on the fringe of the topic for a variety of reasons. In the past, I have found arguments about functional limits to be especially persuasive. For example, on the alternative energy topic, there may be 1000 affs that deal with alternative energy, but since the majority of the community feels that the States CP is a legitimate neg argument and since there aren’t many sustainable advantage areas, there are really only a handful of viable affirmatives Coupling these types arguments of arguments with reasonability can be very persuasive.


 * Performance arguments:**

I’m more persuaded by these arguments when they are read on the negative and have links to the aff/topic. You can read a performance aff that doesn’t defend plan action, but I tend to find myself leaning negative on framework arguments. So, I’m probably not the best judge for these arguments, but I’ll still listen – it’s just that I have a higher threshold for voting aff when it comes to things like framework. That being said, if you’re negative debating a performance aff, I’d honestly rather hear a non-procedural argument (like a K, CP, or DA) against these affs – just more interesting in my opinion. But if you must roll with framework, do it, but do it well and spice it up a little bit.

- Speed is number of arguments, not number of words. Clarity is non-negotiable - I should be able to hear most of the text of cards. - Be nice to your opponents and your partner. - Don’t cheat or steal prep – just don’t. The end. - Have fun and try to learn something… - Finally, you are most likely "into" the debate much more than I, as the judge, am... Keep that in mind! Be entertaining; be persuasive.
 * Random:**

aaronychen@gmail.com for questions.