Sosalla-Bahr,+Spencer

10/15/16

I am a freshman at the University of Kansas in my 4th year of debate. I debated for 3 years at Millard North High School in Omaha, Nebraska and qualified to the Tournament of Champions and NSDA Nationals my senior year. I typically debate as a 2A/1N, but have experience as a 2N as well.


 * General Notes**: Do what you do best and be able to justify why you're doing it. Frontload your offense in the 2NR/2AR so I know what I'm voting on. I love K debate on both sides of the resolution, but I love good debates more. Don't sacrifice doing what you do best just to give me a K debate, but also don't be afraid to venture outside your comfort zone and innovate. Debate is about the debaters.

I'm fine with speed. I flow on paper, so be sure to give me some pen time on rapid-fire theory blocks and whatnot. If I'm going to want to put a part of the debate on a separate sheet of paper, let me know in advance. Otherwise, I'll flow straight down on a flow. Cards are great, but they can only do so much for you without application and warrant extrapolation. Smart analytics can get you out of more tough spots than you think.


 * Policy Affs**: A well-constructed policy aff is a thing of beauty. I'm not a fan of 1ACs that read 3 cards about their aff and dedicate the rest of their time to impacts and preempts. There should be something strategic about your 1AC and its advantages outside of the fact that it outweighs things.


 * Non-Policy Affs**: I love seeing the ways in which people use debate to craft all sorts of new and interesting theoretical frameworks and advocacy skills. While I think the aff should be in the direction of the resolution, I think that interaction with the resolution can occur on multiple levels, and that restraining debates to only questions of hypothetical USFG action is unnecessarily exclusive of a substantial amount of valuable research. All types of performance and speech acts are arguments.


 * Topicality**: T vs a policy aff is a debate that doesn't get enough credit for the level of depth that can be achieved, likely because of how often such a debate just turns into reading blocks at each other with no clash. T he bulk of the debate should probably happen on the standards and impact level. I think the aff should be able to win that their interpretation justifies a better world of debate, so I find it difficult to think of a scenario in which I would vote on reasonability unless the T debate is just a total disaster on both sides. With how many tiny tiny affs there are on this topic, if T is your best strategy going into the 2NR, go for it.


 * Framework**: Given that I've read affs without plans for most of my debate career, I will at the very least be very comfortable with the types of arguments being made in these debates. I think it is difficult for the negative to win on framework if they don't have a way to resolve the aff's offense through either a topical version of the aff or a switch side argument. As a result, the aff should win reasons why simulation of a hypothetical USFG implementation of their advocacy turns the aff's education. It's not enough to tell me what ground is lost or gained when an aff chooses to model or not model USFG policy, there also must be a reason that that ground matters.

I think 1-off framework is both a poor strategy and exceedingly boring. I don't believe framework is necessarily "violent," but the ways in which it is sometimes deployed certainly can be.


 * Theory ** : I'll vote on any theory argument as long as it is well-warranted and impacted out, but I'm also unlikely to reject the team if rejecting the argument solves all your offense. I default to the belief that limited conditionality is good, functional PICs are good, and most other "cheating" counterplans are potentially bad, but I can easily be convinced otherwise. Directly contradictory positions in a 1NC are not universally bad, but will make a condo abuse argument more compelling.

**Kritiks**: Love them. 1-off Ks are my bread and butter. I'm at least somewhat familiar with several branches of literature, including more policy-oriented Ks, identity Ks, and post-modern high theory shenanigans. Links are typically the most important part of these debates, especially in KvK debates. Specific contextualization of the aff to the K and vice versa should begin as early as possible. If the 2AC evidence is super generic and does not apply to the K without a substantial amount of 1AR and 2AR spin, I will grant the block a lot of weight when they say that you dropped their arguments. I will be just as disappointed if the 2NC is an 8-minute overview that doesn't ever talk about the aff. I don't like links of omission, but I also don't like when 2ACs act like a K is a link of omission when it clearly isn't.

Affs can definitely win on the perm in the 2AR, but I've always thought a well explained impact turn should be plan A against a lot of Ks. Sometimes the 2AC framework arguments bite off more than they can chew in terms of making sure they CAN weigh the aff against the K while forgetting that they still have to do the actual weighing. In this respect I don't tend to evaluate the aff's framework as a gateway to the rest of the K, because I think they can win that their framework is a reason the alternative fails to access the political, and still lose enough of the links and impacts to lose the debate (which assumes that framework is a question of alt solvency, which is another debatable predisposition).

**DAs/CPs**: I didn't have very many of these debates in high school, but I'm growing more fond of them in my college career. Make sure there's a coherent link story and impact calculus. I dislike politics DAs, but if that's what you've got then that's what you've got. Specific PIC debates are always a lot of fun. Affs shouldn't be afraid to kick advantages and turn the negative's offense if they have to.

Feel free to email me specific questions at spencerbahr4(at)gmail(dot)com