Glanzman,+Alex


 * So to get my “qualifications” out of the way: **
 * Debate two years in high school (Lawrence) **
 * Debated four years in college (KCKCC) **
 * Broke double-octos at CEDA 2014 **
 * Broke Double-Octos at both NPDA/NPTE 2015 **
 * Only person in the nation currently (2016) who has broke and received a speaker award in 3 different types of intercollegiate debate (parli, policy, LD) **


 * But none of that matters because y’all are probably smarter than I ever will be at the game of debate. **


 * __ Shortened version: __**
 * Do you. I have debated and judged nearly every kind of argument so whatever you feel more comfortable running is what you should. I’m looking for memorable debates; debates that show me that hard work y’all have put into this activity. That can only shine if you focus on what you are good at. **


 * Pay attention to me during your speeches. I express my emotions. The easiest one (yet the one no-one gets) is when I open my eyes all wide and lean forward in my chair. Probably tilt my head upwards. I am asking you to __take whatever you are saying a step further__. Probably an important argument that I think it’s a game-changer. Just read me and you’ll figure out if I’m loving it, hating it, not caring about it, etc. **
 * Show me your passion. Be sassy; make fun of silly arguments and statements, up your swag in the room. Call people out on bullshit. I won’t lie I love it. Don’t get it confused though; sassiness =/= aggressiveness. There is a distinction and sometimes it is hard to find that, so always err on the side of caution. I would like to promote a “safer” environment when I judge. **


 * I care about warranting. I will repeat that; __I care about warranting__. Explain your arguments past your taglines. Taglines are statements, not providing much context or comparison to other arguments. Teams win in front of me when they __explain stories and focus more on analytics__ than doing the evidence dump. **


 * I like embedded clash. I conceptualize debates on more of a meta-level compared to a technical line-by-line fashion. Don’t get me confused though; I will keep line-by-line. If it’s a close debate I will default to looking at it. I’m just saying it may benefit you to focus on the overall theme of the debate to figure out what arguments must be addressed. One of the best pieces of advice that I’ve ever heard was that you are never winning every argument in a debate. **


 * For those that know me, I have a reputation in college of being a “K hack” or whatever. While I do primarily run criticisms, that does not mean I won’t vote on state engagement good/framework. In fact, I have voted for it more than I have a K/Performative argument for the past 4 years of judging. And in parli debate, I have gone for heg good multiple times. I’m flexible. **


 * I will say this though; since criticisms are my thing, my help after the round will usually center on critical “themes”. This is because I’m naturally pre-disposed to viewing rounds in that way and because I am probably not the most qualified/experienced to give some ground-breaking revelations on a politics DA or something like that. So know this, if you a run a criticism/performance I will be able to __HELP you more__ after round on how to solidify your argument. That __does not mean__ that I will __VOTE for you more__ just because you run it. **


 * Shortened version is over; and you really don’t need to read on. But in case you really wanna know specifics I will break it down below. Keep in mind it’s long and is just giving you points of what I would LIKE to see in a debate. It’s more of a text dump than anything else. **


 * __ Affirmatives __**** : **
 * They don’t need to have a plan. They don’t have to be topical. But they do need to affirm a method. Now keep in mind that just because I don’t care if you’re topical does not mean that I won’t pull the trigger on T. You can see that below. I’m just saying; I won’t automatically vote you down just because you have no plan/are untopical. **


 * Now, regardless of whether you are policy or critical; I would like the affirmative to have some sort of textual advocacy coming out of the 1AC so I know the direction and focal point of the aff. An advocacy can include multiple things; a plan text, a personal statement of what you as a team affirm, an affirmation of your methodology, or a role of the ballot. IMO, textual advocacies make it easier to conceptualize how the aff functions against competing advocacies/frameworks. **


 * Other than that, show me why I should vote for you. Duh. **


 * I think something important to point out is that I actually do care about a little bit of extension of the aff even if parts of it weren’t addressed. Don’t just be like “it was dropped, extend it”. Spend 15 seconds to explain it. Trust me, it will make me happier. **


 * 1ARs need to focus on offense and round vision. There is probably no need to extend across every argument made in the 2AC. Focus on what is going to win you the round and make the most comprehensive 2AR story. **


 * 2ARs, like the 2NR, should make “even if” statements. Never assume you have won all arguments. **


 * __ Topicality __**** : **
 * To everyone’s disbelief; T debates are actually some of my favourite to judge if done correctly. Just know this; don’t shyly go for T in the 2NR. To me, T is an all or nothing thing. You either spend __close to__ all your time on it or you don’t extend it at all. **
 * I conceptualize T debates much like a disad. So the beef of most T debates should always be on the standards, since they are the internal link into the voter. **


 * I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability. Seems like it is the most objective, easiest to filter priority of arguments, etc. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote on reasonability. **


 * To me, interpretations are not just definitions but also models for how the debate community should understand a word/phrase to create sustainable forms of argumentation. It will benefit you to view T in this way. The easiest way for someone to win T (aff or neg) is to provide a middle-ground between aff flex and neg research burden. I am looking to vote on an interpretation that creates the most sustainable form of debate for both sides. **


 * Affs should always be questioning whether the neg’s interp actually resolves their standards. Just because they said so doesn’t make it true. **


 * Also affs should be thinking of ways the negs interp actually hurts negative clash/research. I find a lot of neg interps for this topic to be bi-directional and lacking precision. These are semi-creative ways to get teams off of their T blocks. **


 * Finally, negative teams need to focus on voters beyond saying competitive equity and education. In the 1NC it’s fine; but when you expand it show me why competitive equity and education is important. Do we gain better skills for politics/activism? Do we prevent novices from leaving the activity? Questions like these should be asked when expanding on your voters. These are tangible things that separate decent T debaters from great T debaters. **


 * __ Framework: __**
 * A lot of the comments on topicality also apply to framework. **


 * Every affirmative opens up the ability for the neg to test the desirability of it. It’s only a question of what kind of testing is preferable. **


 * Interpretations are models of debate. Period. This means that sustainability of debate and direction of the community is the most important focal point for me. So negative teams should write and explain more creative interpretations for framework to allow as much aff flex as possible. **


 * Affirmatives should stick to their guns and impact turn as much as they can on framework. You will always be able to explain a reason why your method is a pre-req to effective policy-making/institutional engagement; but that isn’t a round winner. That is a “we meet”, which is defensive. You need to give me offensive reasons to reject their framework. I love creative and unique forms of impact turning. Easiest way to do this is to contextualize them to your aff. **


 * Affirmatives should also keep a good vision of how framework is going and make necessary collapses. Internal link turns should always be focused on because it is the easiest way to save time since everything hinges on them. **


 * For negatives, expand your argumentation away from basic dichotomies. To me, the question has never been a zero-sum game of state good to state bad. You should be addressing how your interp is able to gain aspects of both. And link this both to macro and micro levels. Sure state policies may be able to help people of color, but how does your interp affect people of color in the debate community? Almost every critical/performative aff critiques both macro-institutions and micro-level aggressions that happen in the debate community. Therefore it is a necessity you impact out your framework scenarios on both levels. **


 * Switch-side as a scenario isn’t particularly persuasive to me. Mostly because I don’t get how interpretations guarantee a model of choice like switch-side demands. Debate is too fluid and rarely falls into models of pure affirmation and negation. Besides a lot of the time it is not clear what sides you are asking to be switched. Aff to neg? State good to state bad? Critical to policy? I thought the point of policy debate was to find areas of compromise. Maybe that pre-disposition is clouding my view of switch-side. **


 * __ Disadvantages __**** : **
 * Shouldn’t need to explain this too much. Obviously focus on internal links and warranting. Explain an external impact to the aff and then how the disad turns all case advantages/solvency. Trust me it’s totally okay to go all in on one disad in the 2NR if done correctly. **


 * Try to make links specific. I understand sometimes you don’t have it, and that’s okay to rely on generic; but specificity means better warranting and you should know by now I need that. **


 * Yes, I will vote on politics. Yes, I will vote on a heg disad. **


 * __ Counterplans __**** : **
 * I love specific and unique counterplans. XO and states bore the crap out of me because they tend to always become a debate of blocks and it seems stale. You can read XO and states, etc. Just know I may look grumpy. **


 * Counterplans can be topical. We aren’t in the 80s anymore. **


 * I dislike theory debates about how competition should function with a counterplan. As in they should be textually or functionally competitive. It bores me and I tend not to care. Opportunity cost is a logical avenue for a policy-maker/educator to assess. **


 * PIC’s are cool in front of me. I think PICs are actually good if grounded within policy literature. Word PICs are whatever. **


 * Solving the aff is the most important thing to me. A counterplan has very little functional purpose if it does not, on most levels, solve the aff. So solvency deficits are real important to me. **


 * Advantage CP’s are cool in front of me too. **


 * __ Critiques: __**
 * I understand criticisms better than most. It’s what I spend almost all of my research time on. But keep in mind that just because I know the K does not mean I will do the work for you on the flow. Explain and compare your arguments. **


 * The alternative is the most important part of the debate to me because it’s…well an advocacy. A method. What I’m voting on. You need to explain what your alt means, what it does, how it functions. Most importantly, how it overcomes the links. Even if it’s a simple rejection alt. You can always extrapolate more than you think. **


 * Affirmatives should always be arguing why the alt cannot overcome some of the links. And contextualize that to giving you lee-way in terms of a permutation. I think too often people let K debaters get away with saying too much. Don’t be afraid to call them out on it. **


 * Impacts of the K should always turn the aff in some way. I dislike when the debate boils down to “extinction v. value to life”. There are always ethical and material consequences for both policy and critical methods. It’s only a question of who can explain that best. **


 * To me, against a critical aff; running a competing method makes the most sense. And competing method debates are the debates I love seeing the most. **


 * __ Performance: __**
 * Every speech act is a performance. To me, those who debate in a “performative” style are ones who give me a litmus test on how to gauge what is good to bad performance. **


 * Yes, I love performance. It’s what I primarily do in college debate. Read me poetry, tell me your story; I will flow as much as I can. Just keep this in mind; every word that is said, every form of body language, silences, and movements all add to what your performance is trying to paint. Therefore, all of this can help strengthen your method/gain a form of offense against arguments. To me the best performative debaters are ones that are able to extrapolate as much as they can out of the artifact of the 1AC/1NC. **


 * For those going against performance, always keep in mind the specificity of the performance. Keep certain phrases in mind so that your responses do not essentialize their performance horrifically. I get that there needs to be a form of compartmentalization in a game of debate, but it can be easy to turn that compartmentalization into offensive essentialism. **


 * Focus on the method. They can always have performative aspects you will never be able to clash with and that’s okay; if you win that their method is bad the performance most of the time goes away/is bad as well. This comes from my understanding of how performance to performativity functions. Whereas performance is the past act of performing a methodology, performativity is the continuous act of resistance towards hegemonic narratives present in society and therefore puts it into tension with performance itself. It’s disorienting, disruptive, reforming. I filter it in a way that Kristin Langellier explained it. “By performativity, I highlight the way speech acts…understand the constitutiveness of performance…without performativity, however, personal narrative risks being a performance without a theory of power to interrogate what subject positions are culturally available, what texts and narrative forms and practices are privileged, and what discursive contexts prevail in interpreting experience.” So to me, performativity and methodology are always mutually constructing each other. Keep this in mind. **


 * __ Theory: __**
 * I think almost anything is up to debate. So I don’t tend to have many pre-dispositions in terms of theory. I tend to lean on condo bad, but that doesn’t really affect a theory debate on condo. It’s more about an ethical consideration of what condo justifies. **


 * Two pieces of advice: **
 * Get off your blocks and slow down. Theory debates are way too blippy and annoying if you don’t. **
 *  You can use theory to both support and de-construct critical arguments. What does conditional advocacies with the alt mean in context to the rest of the debate? Questions like this should always be asked because it provides a site of tension and perhaps some offense if you package it correctly. **


 *  Interpretations in most theory debates (excluding perm theory) are important. You can’t just say condo bad. Tell me what the alternative is. What should be done. If your interpretation isn’t up to snuff, I tend to not pull the trigger. **