Ma,+Bobby

=BACKGROUND= I currently debate for Cornell University (Class of 2020). I've done Policy Debate for four years at Lynbrook High School (2012-2016), debating under the Transportation, Latin America, Oceans, and Surveillance topics. I've also served as a student coach for Miller Speech and Debate (PF only) 2013-2016. =POLICY=
 * updated 2 December 2016

General Stuff
bobby803.ma@gmail.com Please add me to the email chain (if there is one) so if I need to read evidence, the RFD will be expedited.

Be respectful to your opponents at all times.

Tech > Truth (but only slightly)

I do not like completely new arguments (i.e. a new solvency deficit on case) in the block because the 1ar is such a time-crunched speech. Also this means I will look for a lot of analysis because there is less time to develop these arguments into positions I feel comfortable voting on.

After the round, if I cannot explain to the other team why they lost on a certain argument, I will not vote on that argument. This means do impact calculus and be sure to explain your argument and contexualize it in terms of the aff.

**Speed**
Don't go fast unless you can be clear. To put it into context, I can perfectly understand the [|1NC]s of Georgetown AM (NDT winners 2012 and 2014, around the 50 minute mark).

T/Theory
I have a pretty high threshold on Topicality and place heavy emphasis on the limits debate. The negative must impact out the limits debate. If I can't explain to the affirmative team why violating the interpretation is bad at the end of the round, I will not vote on T.

While I do slightly lean towards competing interpretations, I feel the reasonability/Competing interps debate is unresolvable. Unless both sides make the best arguments or do not say anything about it at all, I will go with whoever had better arguments for their claims.

T and Conditionality are reasons to reject the team. But for most other procedurals, you must prove actual in round abuse that made debating basically impossible.

If you say dispo (not sure if people do anymore) be sure to say what it means. Everyone literally has a different interpretation of its definition.

Especially in the rebuttals, please explain and impact out your theory objections. Short and blippy repeats of shells are hard to catch and probably not a good enough reason to reject the argument or the team.

CPs
I lean towards the idea that CPs should be both textually and functionally competitive (unless the neg team can persuade me otherwise). I do not really have an opinion on CP theory and vote on the team that argues their theory impacts the best.

Any types of Counterplans are fine (agent, process, advantage, etc.).

I believe it is important to have a solvency advocate, but I will vote on a CP w/o one if the aff does not point it out.

DAs
Please have specific links to affirmatives as they make the disadvantage much more believable.

I like the ptx disad and believe it is legitimate and will err neg to theory on that argument.

Please do impact calculus! It is very hard to vote for you if you don't explain how the disad outweighs. If you do not, be prepared to feel judge screwed as I will be forced to intervene if the analysis is not done for me.

Ks
I've debated policy-oriented arguments my whole career, so I am not very read up with the literature. I am familiar with most empirical Kritiks (cap, security, etc.) and identity arguments (heavily debated in district 8). I am not familiar with high-theory but open to them, but concepts and thesis claims need to be explained well.

The permutation must be explained, especially in the rebuttals. Short blippy extensions of "perm do both" until the 2AR will not fly as it does not give the neg the chance to answer reiterations of the permutation.

Case Debate
The case needs to be talked about every single aff speech or else I will be very uncomfortable voting aff. You do not need explain every card; a brief overview of the mechanism and impacts is fine.

I enjoy a good impact turn debate and find the interaction of those arguments with the off case very interesting. While I will vote on presumption if the debate is super super close, I do lean towards try-or-die (unless ppl provide a reason that framing is bad).

Make sure to do lots of impact calc (should start in the 2AC).

**LINCOLN DOUGLAS**

 * most of the stuff in the Policy section is relevant here

**T/Theory**
I like T and think it is good to check abusive affs. I have a high threshold on theory by LD standards (basically the normal threshold for Policy debaters). I like substantive debate and will be persuaded by reasonability (despite thinking competing interps vs reasonability is unresolvable). If theory is your A-strategy you should probably put me at the bottom of your prefs.

**Philosophy**
Unfortunately, I've not encountered many philosophy during my debating career and tended to debate under Util all the time. I'm also watched only a handful of LD rounds and am not too familiar with the event. But from being both part of K v. K debates and watching top teams, I should be able to evaluate comparisons between philosophical frameworks.

**PUBLIC FORUM**
Since I started debate on Policy, I am less strict on the "rules" of public forum and will vote on anything as long as you can justify it (Theory, Kritiks, Counterplans, etc.). This also means I understand really fast talking and won't pin my decision on "this team spoke prettier." But one thing my background has taught me is to stick to the flow, and you should spend significant portions of your summary and final focuses on what you want me to vote on. At the end of the round, if I can't quote from your speech to explain to your opponents why you won, I will not vote for you. Most importantly, debates are about impacts so lots of analysis needs to be done on which standard I view the round through and a lot of impact calculus about why your offense outweighs theirs. Even in the face of dropped/straight up true arguments, I won't automatically vote for them unless the analysis is done.