Sposeep,+Drew

I debated for 4 years at Edina High School and now debate at Trinity University.

I’m a 2A, and have gone for everything from heg good to Heidegger. I’ll vote for what’s on the flow, unless you tell me not to. Speed is fine, but talking conversationally will get you higher speaks than if you’re fast and unclear. In short: do what you do best.

Kritik Affs: I like em’, but be creative and interact with the topic. To win the debate you need to answer a) why I should vote affirmative and b) why your model of debate is good. Make sure to answer tricky framework args like “t-version of the aff” and “read it on the neg.” These aren’t particularly convincing but are terminal defense that’s easy to vote on. I’m a lot more convinced by saying the neg’s interpretation is bad than the education you’ve brought to the round is good. Negative: The biggest problem with framework is oftentimes lack of an impact. A good 2NR should prove how specific practices of the model you endorsed are productive and have better inroads to solving structural problems isolated by the affirmative. Overall, framework is a giant impact debate, so make sure you approach it like one.

Theory: When it comes to cheating counterplans I sympathize a bit more with the affirmative, but I’ll only vote on the args you make. Super technical theory debates should be a lot slower than the speed at which you read cards.

Kritiks: This debate is all about the links. I don’t have a problem with generic evidence, but you should apply it really specifically to the affirmative. Read an alt, or don’t, but explain how what you did resolves the links, and why each one turns the aff. For higher speaks, draw lines from the 1AC in your analysis. Framework debates are usually pretty vacuous; by default I’ll assume the neg gets the kritik and the aff can weigh the plan. The affirmative should focus on impact turning the links, unless they legitimately don’t apply to the aff.

Disads: Impact calc is the name of the game. For higher speaks, you should be doing solid evidence comparison and explaining how the DA turns each part of the affirmative. That being said, I think most disads in policy debate are grossly exaggerated, and I’m persuaded by the argument that structural violence should come first. If you’re affirmative and going for predictions fail on the DA, you still need to indict the specifics of whatever the neg is talking about.

Counterplans: Sweet. Just know that I won’t kick them for you, unless you tell me otherwise.

Topicality: I’m down for a good T debate, but remember to impact your arguments; every standard is a disad to the affirmative’s interpretation of debate. I don’t think that jurisdiction is a reason to vote negative, but rather you should justify why your definition is good.

Be nice, have fun, etc. If you have any other questions, feel free to send me an email. drewsposeep@gmail.com