Kontopoulos,+Alex

New Trier '13 __ Boston College ]]__ Boston College '17 Preclusions: New Trier Latin America Topic Experience: A little over 10 Rounds at NDI

Short Version: Same thing everyone says - Go for what you're good at and explain it well - everything is debatable.

Long Version:

//**Top Level**// - I will try to evaluate the debate based on the arguments that are made in-round, but how I evaluate those arguments will depend on the framing set forth by the debaters, so setting up good framing arguments will go a long way in aiding my decision. A common theme throughout this philosophy is going to be how much I like people explaining shit to me cause it makes my job easier, and it makes you a better debater.

//**#|Paperless**// - I won't take prep for flashing, unless it's absurd. I will also want a copy of all the speeches. I do notice people talking to their partners after prep has been stopped and it makes me mad, as of now I don't have a definite punishment, but it will lower your speaks.

//**The K**// - I went for environment K's a lot my senior year senior year, and have read a K AFF since junior year. That being said, my knowledge of the K doesnt mean you can just throw buzz-words around and expect the ballot. I am a great judge for the K because I am pretty well-versed in the literature, but how you debate it matters. If you are looking to __#|win__ on the K, the most important arguments you need for me are turns case and framework. Again, both of these require you to explain how neolib is the root cause of X or why patriarchy makes serial policy failure inevitable. The team that often wins these debates are the ones that control the framing of the decision (util vs. deontology) as well as the framing of the AFF. Asserting that the AFF is neoliberal, no matter how many times you do it, doesn't count as a link argument, tell me HOW the AFF is X if you want your link.

//**DA/Case**// **//Debate//** - I think this strategy is highly underutilized, especially given how shitty all the AFFs I have seen on this topic are. Make sure if you (as the NEG) go for this strategy to do good turns case debating, and don't just read #|cards. Although I do collect speech docs during the round, I won't do the leg-work for you by reading into your cards, unless there is a dispute in cx, or evidence quality is implicated in the speech.

//**Topicality**// - I usually will default to competing interpretations, but I have seen some dumb T arguments, and have voted on reasonability. I find that the NEG teams that #|win these debates are those that have a compelling interpretation and do good impact work. Not just "we solve fairness and that's good because it's fair", but go deeper. Does fairness turn __#|education__, or is it the other way around? Who accesses a larger internal link into what? Can your __#|education__ from a more limited topic turn the __#|education__ we get from a broad topic? These are all questions you should consider when going for T, and let me know what you come up with. Additionally, the AFF teams that win these debates most are the ones that can go for reasonability. Make sure that you not only tell me how to evaluate T, but the impacts as well. Even if I default to competing interpretations, do I evaluate potential abuse?

//**Theory**// - SLOW DOWN! People usually just bury their heads in their computers ]] and read their blocks at top speed, which is impossible to flow. If you do this, and I can't flow you, I won't expect the other team to, and thus won't vote them down on "surprise ASPEC". A lot of what I said on topicality above is applicable to how you debate theory, so look their for how to debate the impacts of theory. My dispositions are that CPs that result in the entire AFF are cheating, condo is fine at two or less, but everything is still up for debate. If you have any more questions regarding my dispositions, ask me before the round, but if you are worried about the legitimacy of your CP, it's probably not legit.

//**Project Teams**// - Teams advocating non-topical actions should be involved with their movement outside of debate. If you are a project team and you fail to do this, and the other team points it out, you will have a hard time winning. In my mind, if you aren't involved with progressing your movement outside the round, then you don't really care about it and you just want to use your social location to win the ballot. This might not be the case, and I'm not gonna try and pretend this is true for everyone, but this will be the thought in my head if you just do debate, and don't take any grassroots-level action.