Alex+Chang

I currently debate for UMKC. For the most part, I feel like I can be persuaded to vote on anything.

General thoughts:

Theory:

I will vote on theory, but the aff will need a pretty decisive victory. Conditionality is probably ok. Generally I default negative on status of the cp (condo/dispo good), but I am open to hearing theory about things like international fiat, multiactor fiat, etc.

Framework debates are ok but I rarely think they are a voting issue. I’m much more compelled that winning the “policy good” framework means you get to weigh your advantages/disadvantages against the criticism.

Topicality:

I believe in reasonable interpretations, meaning that competing interpretations are good, but any risk of offense in favor of your interpretation isn’t going to justify a neg ballot. You have to prove a pretty tangible impact with real implications for ground. Just saying ‘limits good’ isn’t going to cut it.

Counterplans:

They are good. You should have a tangible net benefit. Aff teams, remember to point out that presumption flips aff and sometimes the “any risk” calculus has no place in debate.

Disads:

They are good. Be sure to win uniqueness. Good impact defense can take the aff a long way. For politics, issue specific uq typically trumps generic uq. You must compare link risks both ways.

Impact turning:

Always enjoyable.

Kritiks:

I believe in very specific scenario building and refutation of affirmative eve, explaining why it isn’t an answer to the alt, etc. You HAVE TO PASS THE MAKE SENSE TEST. For affs, you can use your generic evidence to answer them, but you better have a great explanation/scenario for why your generic eve is applicable.

Performance:

I've never debated a performance aff but if you can make it make sense, go for it. I am easily entertained.

You should do whatever is most comfortable for you in front of me, just make sure you debate well and understand your argument. Feel free to ask me any specific questions you have.