Sussman,+Jon

Jon Sussman

New Trier '13 University of Chicago '17

TOC Debater my senior year, around 4 or 5 bids if I remember correctly. During my first year in college I was one of the two head coaches of the UCLab Academy debate team.

Overall note: asymptotically approaching tabula rasa is a goal, but as some of my peers have pointed out, I have notable preferences:

Affirmatives: Don't need a plan, but even if you are critical I'd like to see an advocacy or central thesis of some sort. I ran non-plan affirmatives in my debate career but always found it easier to tow the line on the framework debate. That being said, framework is a question of topicality, and I much prefer that interpretation to debates about consequentialism and what not. I don't believe a plan is necessary to be topical, although in a lot of cases is sufficient.

Critiques: Read them and make your link and turns case arguments specific. Sure, there are three stock arguments to make against the permutation, but without specific links I am sympathetic to a well explained permutation. Affirmatives shouldn't drop tricks because, as it is my first (now second) year, I am predisposed to vote on technical concessions that I can trace through the debate (even more so now that I am less involved).

Counter-plan: I detest 50 state fiat, but if you must, go for it. Anything else is up for debate, although I have a very high threshold (hopefully this answers ever GBN novices question about theory) for plan inclusive CPs. This includes mandate PICs unless you get a cross ex concession. That being said, I also have a relatively high threshold for conditionality. If you draw a line in the sand and have good impact calculus, you should be good, but make sure it doesn't look like you got cornered into going for it.

Disadvantages: my favorite part of debate past a good case turn.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, and you are normally better off if you are on the side of truth but that doesn't have to be the case. My partner was a T hack so I am semi-up-to-date on the technicalities of certain standards debates. Not my favorite debates to watch but if done well are some of the most rewarding.

Do a lot of case debate, turn the affirmative on different levels and do specific warrant comparison. You will be rewarded, I promise.

My email is jondsussman@gmail.com and I am willing to respond to emails about debates in which I have judged you.

A lot of the older jokes on this page seemed irrelevant so I deleted them. If you have any specific questions let me know, and I will answer to the best of my ability.