Trufanov,+Anthony

 Debater at the University of Kentucky Assistant Coach at Glenbrook North High School Current as of 9-4-17, but in the future go to Tabroom.com T/L Tech determines truth unless it's death good. I won't vote on death good.  Conceded arguments are absolutely true - what that means is up for debate. If the implication of a conceded argument is not debated out, I will try to figure it out for myself, which could turn out bad for you.
 * Put me on the email chain: ant981228@gmail.com**. If you don't I will know you have not read this and be sad.

DAs No (I think) unusual views - I might care about turning the case more than average.

CPs Education topic update: the states CP is obviously fine---deal with it. Process CPs: in a debate between two evenly matched opponents with a reasonably high skill level, the aff should usually win the competition debate. When this doesn't happen it is likely because of technical mistakes. My strong presumption is that condo is good. I will judge kick unless you tell me not to. C/Is are usually arbitrary. The gateway to all of debate's value is clash - if you win that your interpretation makes clash better, I will probably conclude that your interpretation is better. But, I am reluctant to vote on most theory arguments. Nothing but condo is a voting issue.

Ks Tl;dr - I'm probably not the judge for you. If your arsenal is limited and you're stuck with me, I will place a high premium on neg k arguments that clash with the aff, have well-developed, contextual, and intrinsic link arguments, and are coupled with consequentialist reasons the plan is not desirable. Affs' path to victory is proving that the K does not do these things. Therefore, reductionism DA + perm the most persuasive approach to answering most K arguments. Ditto for K affs and neg going for FW - instead of saying TVA, your broader argument should be that the aff's offense isn't intrinsic to resolutional debate, and should use examples of topical versions as warrants for that broader argument. If the aff is a K aff, I am receptive to neg "no perms" arguments.

T It is early in the season so I can see myself being persuaded otherwise, but I am currently not sure how curriculum affs can beat the states CP, which makes that interpretation untenable. Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX. I think this is one of the best way to find inconsistencies in neg interpretations which you can exploit to your advantage in rebuttals. Clash is why debate is good - ground and fairness are certainly related concepts but clash is why they matter. I don't think fairness has transcendental value that trumps all other impacts, but it might have useful qualities like encouraging research. Cards matter - all else being equal, if you read more cards supporting/fleshing out your interpretation and demonstrating why the aff doesn't meet I will be more likely to vote for you. I am unlikely to care about a cardless T 2NC.

Random thought My favorite analogy about debate is that it is a series of experiments. Therefore ideally we would optimize debate using practices analogous to those we use to refine and improve social science experiments - as if we were running a simulation thousands of times and seeing how the answer changed depending on how we manipulate the variables. That's not to say all knowledge used in debates should be objective or falsifiable - that, like everything else, is debatable. I'm not entirely sure what this means for concrete debate practices but the comparison really vibes with me.