Sugarman,+Lev

El Cerrito ‘15 Georgetown ‘19


 * For the HS China topic: ** I am __not__ well-versed in the topic lit for this year. That means you should limit the acronyms/explain topic-specific arguments that you think would be unclear otherwise.


 * Short version: ** Do what you’re good at.


 * Longer version: ** I debated for a small high school and had pretty extensive national circuit experience, ending my career at the TOC. I am not debating in college.

My coaches in high school were Josh Martin, Sunny Advani, and Rohit Rajan—their wikis, although different, are pretty good representations of my thoughts about debate.

I was a 2A in high school and if it matters, we went for politics and counterplans against most policy affs. Around 70% of our 2NRs against K affs were framework, with the other 30% being Marx.

That being said, I don’t have any strong dispositions towards critical vs policy debate. It just means it’s your responsibility to **explain** your aff with no plan/kritik instead of assuming I understand it and am ready to pull the trigger. I’m pretty familiar with the more common K lit but you’re fighting an uphill battle if you’re planning on going for high theory in front of me.

If you choose to read framework, I am infinitely more persuaded by substantive framework (state engagement good/dialogue/etc.) rather than listening to your 6 minute fairness overview.

My favorite debates to judge involve case-specific counterplans and disads. Impact turns are great but if you’re gonna do it, don't half-ass it--this means devoting the majority of your speech time to the impact turn.

I’m not afraid to dock your speaks if you’re being rude or offensive. Most importantly, debate should be fun—why do it otherwise?.

If you have any specific questions, either ask me before the round or email me at: lev.sugarman@gmail.com