Dettelbach,+Adam

Adam Dettelbach I debated for 4 years at Georgetown Day School

-I judge based on what was argued and how it was argued. In other words, even if you are running an argument that I dislike, if you do the better debating, I will vote for you. I do have some predispositions and stylistic requests, but I will flag them if they are important. I will always vote for the team that did the better debating but will usually decide that you didn’t do the better debating if you violate a major one. -A dropped argument is a true one, but I prefer truth over tech when weighing arguments. -Please email me your speeches. This helps me follow along and makes ethics challenges easier to resolve. -You can be fast as long as you are clear. I will yell “clear” once, but if you do not get clearer I will shrug and probably miss some of what you are saying. You should slow down for tags. -Have fun and don’t be mean. I understand that this is a competitive activity, but there is a fine line between being competitive and being rude or obnoxious, and too often people seem to cross it.
 * __TL;DR __**

__Affs: __ -Be topical - this is really important for me. While I won’t instantly reject you if you are untopical, I AM predisposed toward the negative in framework debates, and am likely to grant you minimal solvency. You will need to be INCREDIBLY persuasive to get me to vote for you.
 * __Specifics: __**

__Counterplans: __ -Most of this is on theory, but I am a huge fan of specific advantage counterplans with tons of net benefits.

__Disadvantages: __ -Go nuts. Case-specific DA’s are super cool and fun to judge.

__Topicality: __ <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-I default to competing interpretations, but will obviously listen to reasonability. Explain why the other team’s interpretation is bad for debate because I don’t see nearly enough comparison.

__<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Theory: __ <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-As a general rule, I think that evaluating in-round is more important than discussing potential abuse, though I can be convinced to vote on it. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-1 conditional advocacy is not abusive, two are probably fine, and reading three or more will probably result in losing on theory. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-Consult counterplans are generally illegitimate, but sometimes the case debate can provide justification for them. Delay counterplans are never competitive. Substantive method PICs and word PICs against Kritikal Affs are fine but word PICs against Topical Affirmatives are questionable. New 2NC Counterplans are illegitimate and I am on the fence about agent counterplans, especially ones that just use a different part of the USFG. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">will not judge-kick arguments for you.

__<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Kritiks: __ <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-My favorite framework is “weigh the affirmative against kritik.” I hate when one side thinks that they get to moot the other team’s entire argument, by saying that their type of argument comes first (Hint: saying fiat is illusory is not enough to moot your opponent’s aff). <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-I dislike vague alts and if I think that yours falls under this category I will almost certainly vote on the perm - not nearly enough Kritikal teams explain what their alternative does and even fewer affs attack alt solvency. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-I will not vote on an alternative that employs utopian fiat, talks about fear of death or how death is good.

__<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Identity/Performance: __ <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">*Jedi Mind Trick* I am probably not the judge you are looking for. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">-In the event that I am judging you, the following are probably relevant: I firmly believe that you can ground discussions of identity in the topic - framework is an attempt to level the playing field so that there can be a genuine dialogue. Also, 'they use the USfg’ is NOT a link - you need to come up with an aff or topic specific link to have even a small chance of winning.