Lee,+Patrick


 * Hi. ** I'm Patrick and I went to Katy Taylor HS where I debated with Mohamed for 4 years and went to the toc. I currently attend UT Austin for computer science

Until the end of Junior year, I only read plan texts. Senior year, I read none. Point is, I'm not biased towards one style over another; both can be ridiculous or strategic. The best judges I've had were those who'd set aside their ideological biases and fairly evaluate arguments; the worst judges I've had were the opposite. I'll try my best to adjudicate debates like the former. With that said, here are thoughts I have about debate:

- Technical concessions > truth claims

- Slow down on important arguments please

- Default to rejecting the arg not the team

- T isn’t a RVI

- I’ll protect the 2nr, esp. when the 2ar explodes on 1ar blips

- No prep in the round = 30 speaks


 * Framework ** : __debate is a game__ that revolves around the topic. We went for framework a lot on the neg vs untopical affs, but also answered it a ton on the aff. I think that fw is a good check on the recent proliferation of strange k affs, but good affs have good answers to it. Honestly in these debates I'd just vote for the team making better args and don't feel any obligation towards one side or another


 * K affs ** : they should have a link to the topic and also some sort of a coherent method, otherwise it'll be very easy to convince me that the aff doesn’t get perms + framework becomes more persuasive. These affs can be the most fun to read, but easily the most frustrating to debate


 * competition theory is true: ** good arguments are COMPETITIVE and win links. For example, saying vote neg because the 1ac didn’t talk about black trans women isn’t compelling to me if there isn’t an opportunity cost between voting aff and also agreeing with whatever the neg is saying. Perms are tests of competition


 * Ks ** : Read a lot of these. cx is a good place to find game winning links. You should ask whether or not they contacted their representatives in Congress + if they know who their representatives are; the answers for the most part will be disappointingly funny. Death is not always bad. Life isn’t always good. Have an external impact

**DA/CP**: Good. The more specific the better

Recently I’ve noticed many disturbing similarities between the far left and the far right in debate; affect matters, but screaming at your opponents for no conceivable reason or launching baseless accusations in the name of your survival isn’t even remotely persuasive – keep in mind there’s a clear line between being witty and annoyingly rude