Mehling,+Ben

I debated for 4 years at Chattahoochee High School and 1 year at Michigan State. I’ve probably judged 20 rounds on the Africa topic.

I will preface specifics with a larger issue- you should be doing what you want and what you are good at

Topicality- The more specific the violation the better ie this should not be your primary strategy unless the situation and evidence support you. I understand the strategic utility of reading several generic t’s in the 1nc. That’s fine, just understand if you want to go for them they need to be debated and impacted well. You should tell me to evaluate t through the lens of competing interpretations or reasonability. Aspec/Ospec- you can read them, they are ok time tradeoffs, but they are a tough sell in the 2nr.

Theory- I lean neg on pretty much every theoretical question, conditionality is good, pics are good, international fiat is good etc A theory argument is a reason to reject the argument not the team unless very persuasively proven otherwise. This does not mean you cannot go for theory. I like technical well impacted debates, and sometimes theory can be that, just know it well require much more time investment than “they dropped multiple perms bad voting issue”. A couple of caveats, I am somewhat more open to theory against consult and condition cps(although I mostly think these are bad because they aren’t competitive). One topic specific caveat- cps that combine separate us and international actions in order to solve us key warrants are theoretically suspect, if these are legitimate it’s a pretty though world to be aff.

Counterplans/disads- I like these a lot. I evaluate these by weighing risks ie does the risk of the disad outweigh the risk of the aff not solved by the cp etc. It is helpful to you comparative impact analysis. You should operate under the assumption you aren’t winning the entirety of your disad, cp, or case and tell me what to do under those circumstances. Affs should utilize tricky perms more. On disads you should tell me whether uniqueness or the link is more important. Topic caveats- I think at this point in the season there aren’t that many international or ngo counterplans that are unpredictable, cut disads to them. Pics out of 1 country are probably not competitive.

Case- not enough people have these debates. I like impact turns. It is one of my favorite parts of debate. I think heg bad, free trade bad, prolif good, ever malthus etc are all highly defensible.

Kritiks- you might be wondering “ Can I go for the kritik in front of someone who went to hooch and now msu?”, yes (I went for the K with great regularity my junior year and occasionally senior year) but keep a few things in mind. You need to control the framework and method for impact analysis, ie a significant portion of your strategy should be proving why reps, methods, ontology etc comes before the affs args. You need to soundly defeat the perm. Winning the k turns the case is usually pretty important. On framework debates I think a middle ground where the aff gets there case is probably best but I could be convinced otherwise. Specific and good research on kritiks should be rewarded as it seems exceedingly rare. I like teams who can go for the k and policy, and who have strategies. You should not be reading the security/biopower k you cut preseason as your primary strategy. Keeping all those things in mind, my defaults are extinction outweighs everything, and k alts are generally poorly constructed. K affs- I think these are fine and often very strategic, but you should defend some kind of plan and some kind of action going into affect. I think the best k affs are ones with specifically tailored actions that answer arguments with a combination of kritik and policy angles.

Performance- I am the wrong judge. Policymaking is good. What you say in front of me won’t change the world or the activity. Stories about personal experience might be interesting but I find them difficult to evaluate. For a not so subtle hint I have gone for framework against every performance aff I have ever debated against.

Random - the brand new 2ar is not a compelling strategy, I’ve been a 2n for all 5 years. I will protect the negative. - Be funny, be relatively nice (there is nothing wrong with competitive fire, just know where the line is and don’t cross it). Act like you want to be debating. - I will read ev, if it is properly extended and impacted in the last rebuttal (like by author) and the other team has a direct competing claim ie evidence and the debaters have done a poor job of comparison. I might have to read and compare myself. Also if either side points out specific flaws in evidence or references specific parts of the card. Those are the two most obvious situations I can think of, but there are other instances I might read some cards - you may have concluded I am pretty good for policy neg teams, although this is probably true. Aff's on this topic have aid now, and thats pretty tough to deal with. - If this isn’t clear ask me.