Xu,+Allan

Hi frands

i'm Allan. i debated at edgemont high school for 5 years, and i'm a freshman at binghamton university now.

tl;dr - do whatever you want. i read 8 minutes of heg good with the internal link being our discourse of heg good solves without a plan, to an antiblackness aff every debate at the toc. whatever you do, do it well and i'll be happy. line by line is very important and necessary to get good points regardless of how awesome you sound . that being said, i have a few random thoughts about debate

- i think i'm 51/49 against framework (ie i'd vote aff in a tie) but my bias is SUPER easily overcome by good debating - that being said, the neg should define words in the resolution instead of asserting they should "read a plan" and go for impact scenarios with a procedural fairness internal link over decisionmaking and reform good. these debates, without concessions of 2nc framework tricks by the 1ar, usually are decided by impact calculus - both the neg and aff need to couch their argument in more concrete terms instead of going for vague impact scenarios

- counterplan theory - very much case-by-case basis - i think that a neg pic that shows that they did their research (cutting 1ac ev, reading lit that directly responds to the 1ac solvency advocate) that is responded to by "pics bad" by the aff is utterly unconvincing - however, reading the most generic counterplan on the rez and saying that we have a card about "surveillance" makes me sympathize with the aff

- defense is very good and needs to be used more

- everyone needs to stop and think about why things are silly - there will probably be a very contrived aff on the rez that everyone makes fun of, but teams manage to win debates on them anyways - the neg needs develop a well-thought out, well-written argument that points out logical flaws and just silliness in argument

- politics case was always the 2nr i wanted to give a 2ar on - if you don't want the same, i tend to think that there is something very wrong with the construction of the aff - that being said, i think the neg needs to have either a. a conceded turns case argument or b. well developed solvency takeouts to win a debate where the teams are on relatively the same level and the 2nr is politics case

- aff needs to put pressure on the block/neg - given the advent of rampant conditionality and other factors, a 2ac that just plays defense on everything the neg says is a ticket to failure - the aff needs to control the direction of the debate using strategically placed 2ac offense (addons, theory arguments, straight turns etc) or the block will run over the aff with new cards and 13 minutes