Hensel,+Danny

Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, IL '14 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI '18

If you have questions/comments about this philosophy, debate in general, and/or the University of Michigan (I'm an Admissions tour guide so I can speak on behalf of that department), feel free to email me at hensel.danny@gmail.com or djhensel@umich.edu

4 years of policy debate at Glenbrook North (including two years qualifying to the Tournament of Champions) means I am (hopefully) not incompetent. That being said, the last tournament at which I have competed was in March of 2014, so I have lost some proficiency in flowing. In the wise words of Ellis Allen, " I know very little about the topic, so easy on acronyms and assumptions about what the core of the topic is."

These are pertinent thoughts of mine that are arranged in no particular order, other than in two categories: techniques and arguments.

__**Techniques**__:

- //__**Do impact calculus, early and extensively**__//. More often than not, I start with the impact when deciding a debate. - //__**Do evidence comparison, early and extensively**__//. I try to avoid calling for evidence. I will call for evidence when a card is mentioned but is not debated well. This is not strategic for any team, it //can only// be a liability. I will only evaluate the evidence by the arguments made in the final rebuttals (e.g. if no one mentions how recently a card was published I will neither consider nor even //look// at the date of any card). - If an argument is important, it must be made **clear** to me. - Please no offensive language, physical or psychological violence, etc. - Please do not accost me after a round for a decision. I try my best. - Please use the phrase "they conceded" sparingly and appropriately.

__**Arguments**__:

- I believe the greatest disservice a judge can do to the activity is to shut out arguments arbitrarily. If an argument is made, I will evaluate it as objectively as I can, but that is not to say I enjoy listening to/agree with every argument. I //prefer// an affirmative that reads a plan text and defends the effects of federal government enactment of that plan, as well as a negative that does not read high-theory kritiks. Also, I am not a good judge for arguments based on the oppression of people(s). - I refuse to evaluate an identity of a debater in making any decisions (victories, speaker points, etc.) unless I am given an extremely compelling reason otherwise. - Please //__**be slow on topicality and theory**__//. I will happily vote on either, but you must be slow. As a debater, I personally drew a line at two conditional advocacies but you are free to do whatever you want as long as you defend it. - Few things (really just the Oil DA/Oil Dependence Good) are more enjoyable to listen to than //__**case-**__//**//__specific__// __//disadvantages//__**. - Most, if not all, impacts are contrived. //__**Use impact defense extensively**__//. Shower Thoughts: I am willing to vote on zero risk of an impact but it's not very common. - Be ready to //__**defend the theory of the politics disadvantage**__//. Also, I believe the burden is on the //negative// to prove the president pushes the plan. - I prefer counterplans that don't do the affirmative to those that do, but I am willing to vote for either kind. My favorite counterplans are advantage counterplans and PICs out of a function of the affirmative (rather than a word). - Kritiks are weakest at the alternative and internal link levels. A strong defense of your framework will obviate the need for an alternative. - I very much dislike arguments based on usage of offensive terms by the other team (e.g. "you guys"). It's not that I don't think this is a problem, but my personal belief is that if someone says something offensive, you should confront that person after the round and say, "Hey, that term is offensive, please don't use it." Turning it into an argument commodifies the experience of being offended which is a major problem. I will evaluate these arguments as fairly as I can but I won't be smiling. - I very much enjoy the Oil DA, Advantage CPs, and DAs that are really specific to the affirmative. There is no situation in which I will reward going for a more generic strategy over a more specific strategy. Also I just love the Oil DA. The impacts are awesome, it's easy to understand, and the internal link is less contrived than most other DAs. - I really enjoy learning about the Supreme Court, and I know quite a bit about the cases each term, so proceed with caution when making arguments about that body. I write a [|blog] about the Supreme Court and really enjoy following the term, so simplifying that body for the sake of an argument will open you up to a lengthy lecture by me after the round. So if you're reading arguments about the Court and/or if you just want to know more about it, please contact me for the sake of the community.

__Arguments__, in descending order of my opinion of them (higher up = I like them more) - Oil DA - Aff-Specific DA - Advantage CP - Case Defense - Arguments involving the Courts that are not totally contrived - Aff-Specific Functionally competitive PIC - Aff-Specific K - Topic-Specific DA - Topic-Specific Process CP - Generic DA - Generic K (e.g. Security or Capitalism) - Politics DA - Topicality - Commissions CP - Arguments involving the Courts that are totally contrived - Word PIC - Delay CP - High-theory kritik

__**Other**__:

- As my grandma Roz says, "Enjoy it all!" - References to [|The Big Lebowski], [|30 Rock], [|Arrested Development], [|Veep], [|Parks & Rec] will be appreciated.