Lubell,+Max


 * Max Lubell**

Affiliation:University of Michigan Class of 2018 Notre Dame High School Class of 2014 Questions do not be shy - maxlubell@gmail.com **Let us begin:** I was a 2n for the start of my career and a 2a for my senior year+freshman year of college. Let me start this off by saying I love this activity. I have devoted a good amount of my life to it. I really view this activity through a lens of community. For this reason I think making this a safe place for everyone is paramount and if I feel at any point you are going against this (even by just being plain mean) I will take the necessary steps to penalize you for it (most likely in a loss of speaker points). I have divided the next parts into general and specifics read as you must. **General:** You do you. This philosophy is not a rule book it is a guideline. I will try to be as impartial as possible. Being unbiased does not mean I understand everything. I don't want to vote on morally reprehensible arguments (patriarchy good, racism good, ect.) Frame the debate. It will frame my decision. If neither debater frames the debate for me I am free to input my own predispositions. This may help you or hurt you, but if you framed the debate you should not need to worry. Dropped argument is not a true argument. If you cannot prove your dropped argument as correct you do not deserve to win/should never have read it to begin with.

Technology sucks. Flashing does not count as prep. This does not mean you should steal prep. If your computer breaks down let me know right away do not be afraid I have had mine break down a number of times in round, we can work it out. I feel like this is a service to you and I am being nice so if I catch you stealing prep I will doc speaks and flashing will be prep for the rest of the round. Be civil - I feel this goes without saying, but I find some debaters need a reminder

**Specificity:** **Topicality/Other procedurals**: My time as a 2n I went for T a good amount I saw it as a very strategic option. My time as a 2a I read an aff that most people saw as incredibly untopical. This has allowed me to form a lot of ideas on T debates for both sides. - Have good definitions. As a 2a I hate it when negs found random cards that were not even definitions and would make them T arguments. If you find a reason I should prefer your T arg because the other team's evidence sucks then it will go far with me. - Try to make your T argument exclusive and specific to the aff. - I am more inclined to evaluate reasonability if explained well by the aff. I exte - I evaluate T a lot like a DA with set impacts (education/fairness) and internal links to those impacts (limits/ground/ect.). I am not necessarily voting for the most correct legal interpretation but the one best for debate. - I will vote on tricky procedural arguments but only if handled very poorly by the other team. I would rather not take the easy way out. **Disads** I really do not think there is much to say here. - Impact framing is your friend. I read an aff with soft impacts and have to go for probability outweighs magnitude all the time. - Have good cards **Counterplans/Theory** When I was a 2n, I went for cheating counterplans regularly. Although I see the strategic benefit I will like you more if you have a specific CP to the aff. When I was a 2n I thought the neg should be allowed to get any argument because it is so hard to be neg. Now as a 2a I see myself thinking the neg should not be allowed to get some of these arguments. My point is, although I would MUCH rather you go for substance, I see both sides to the theory debates and will try to be impartial. Go slow on theory.1 or 2 conditional options is probably okay anything over is probably not. **Critiques** Evidence and framing goes a long way for me. I find myself researching more higher K arguments as time goes on.

- Not a fan of long overviews. if you can find a place on the flow to put them do it. If you have no idea where to put something given the 2ac an overview is probanly okay but if you find yourself saying "cross apply from the overview" it was probably unneeded. - Framework - make it specific to what the other team is saying - try not reading your generic this argument is important block - Links - make it specific - I am more inclined to side that what the aff is doing is probably a good idea if you are going super generic. Pull lines from their ev. If your strat is they used the state so I can read a K you are probably not in a great place without a specific link even if its just your spin. **Non-plan affs** I will vote on these affs. Whoever does the better debating, whether it is the aff or the neg going for framework, will win.

I would enjoy your aff a lot more if it was in the direction of the topic. That is not a requirement, however if you are in the direction of developing or exploring the oceans I will be happier. For the negative - do you. If your strat is going for framework do it, if its a generic K do it, if its to attack the K aff head on and dig in the trenches (I would much rather and will award this more) do it. Call the aff out if they are on the line of the topic. If the aff talks about oceans, but has nothing to do with exploration or development. Be civil - this goes for debaters on both sides of the spectrum. At no point should anyone feel unsafe in the debate space. Stay golden everyone and good luck! Cats