Young,+Brennan

Email chains are cool, and I like being cool... therefore please add me to your email chains -> fnc.byoung@gmail.com toc //**Updated // 2018 California Invitational**//

**__ General Stuff: __**

 * Conflicts**: Winston Churchill H.S.
 * Background**: Debated four years at Winston Churchill - Three years of policy. One year of LD. I got exposure on the Nat. Circuit/TOC, TFA, UIL (wtf), and NSDA circuits respectively.


 * __The Debater's Cheat Sheet:__**
 * **Stuff I Really Like**: Cap/Neolib, Antiblackness Kritiks, Settler Col./Spanos Kritiks, Baudrillard/Semiotics, Psychoanalysis
 * You do you, as long as you explain and justify the choices you've made in the route and have a coherent decision calculus, virtually anything has the potential to win. whatever style of debate you're comfortable with, go for it.
 * **Stuff I Hate: Theory (**See Theory Section**) & Philosophy.**
 * I spent almost my entire career going for kritikal arguments, however I'm most comfortable with race/class kritiks.

**__Kritiks:__**

 * I'm most comfortable evaluating K debates or K vs Policy debates.
 * Just saying the words "The Role of the Ballot" is not an argument, explain the mechanism/framing of the argument or else I'll be less inclined to care.
 * **Specific links** to the Aff/Method/Performance are a must.
 * Overviews can make or break you. Your analysis of specific links has the potential to shift your perceptual position on the flow.
 * If I don’t know what the world of the alt looks like (or what your method is if you don’t defend a specific vision) I’ll be sad and a bit angry.
 * Nuanced K’s are always better than boring generic ones. Don’t just read a K because I’m in the back.

**__Topicality__:**
Topicality is cool. I'd prefer you read T against a questionably topical affirmative but you do you. Topicality 2NR/2ARs should be about competing visions of the topic and should boil down which vision is thus better. Strong case lists are an underutilized argument. Standards should be more than just vacuous terms like "limits" or "predictability" or better yet... fairness. Absent reasons why those things are good, it becomes hard to evaluate T debates.

__**Framework:**__
Whereas topicality is clash over the topic interpretation, framework is clash over competing visions of debate. I enjoy questionably topical/non-topical affirmatives when debated strongly.

I think terminal impacts are a key facet to winning 2NRs. Please say more than just "destroys fairness" as that's just vacuous and doesn't explain why fairness is important. I'm partial to fairness and argument testing impacts and equally partial to pedagogy/inaccessibility arguments.

Topical version of the affirmative is an amazing argument.


 * **Arguments I'm Most Receptive To**: Pedagogy/Inaccessibility claims, Impact Turns to Standards, Topical Version of the Affirmative, Switch Side Debate, State Heuristics.

**__“Tricks”:__**

 * LD tricks need to die and are probably bad for debate. **I will not (happily) vote for tricks.**
 * If by some weird decision you still choose to pref me, be an honest warrior and be transparent about your arguments. I’ll do my best to evaluate what you give me.
 * If you read anything morally repugnant and your opponent calls you out you’re gonna lose.
 * If something magically becomes a presumption trigger in the next speech I will be hesitant to vote on it.

**__LD Specific Stuff :__**

 * I'm under qualified to judge philosophy and moral framework debates.
 * I'm a policy kid; go too far into LD specific territory and I'll fight for the easiest way out on the flow.
 * If you want to go for these arguments in front of me, you seriously need to explain this shit to me like I'm five.
 * Please just try not to read philosophy in front of me(????)

**__Policy Arguments:__**

 * Not really sure what to say here. It’s chill, slow down for texts, weigh, do your thing.
 * I've learned that I kinda suck at judging politics debates. I understand your arguments and I understand the mechanisms of your strategies, but I find that a lot of politics debates end up with people just yelling buzzwords like "Winners win" or "Thumper means we control uniqueness" -- Yeah I understand what those arguments are and what they mean but I refuse to do the work for you on the analysis. **You need to invest the time to explain the scenario and the internal link chain.**

**__Speaker Points/Speaking:__**

 * I view speaker points as relative to the activity of debate rather than relative to the pool of a tournament or the round itself. If I think your practices are net good for the activity then it will heavily base your speaker points. That's not to say that I won't hesitate to tank your points based on instances that take place in round though.
 * Speed and clarity are separate things. As long as you’re clear, speed shouldn’t be a problem. **I'll never say clear during a speech. If I literally cannot understand you, I believe I'm under no obligation to communicate that to you once the time begins.**
 * I love sass, but there’s a way to do it without being an asshole.
 * I’m not a flowbot so don’t treat me like one.


 * In general...**
 * **30**: I think that you are one of the best this activity has to offer.
 * **29.9 - 29:** I expect you to be deep in the bracket and enjoyed the organization and execution of the debate.
 * **29 - 28:** Your performance was good/strong just some issues with organization/Poor CX/speaking etc.
 * **28 - 27:** You knew what was happening but was generally behind on all fronts.
 * **27 - 26:** Poor strategy. Poor speaking. Poor organization.
 * **26 or lower:** You meme'd yourself.

**__Theory:__**
I think one of the worst moments in debate was when debaters found out that judges would vote for theory as a strategy rather than a legitimate check against blatant abuse. I think you should never read theory unless there's **seriously** a substantial abuse story, If you seriously believe there's in-round abuse, then I'm probably inclined to agree with you and you should really consider reading theory.

With that being said... **I HATE THEORY DEBATES.** They are more than likely not justified and have really bad interpretations and generally become a wash.


 * Things That I'm More Open Too:**
 * - Condo/Dispo Bad**
 * - Utopian Fiat Bad**
 * - Disclosure Theory**
 * - General Counterplan Theory**
 * - Content/Trigger Warnings/General Bad Juju etc.**


 * Most everything else is probably never going to win a ballot out of me unless there's an explicit and blatant instance of abuse.**

Some general defaults when you decide to go for theory...
 * **When it comes to theory debates I default Truth > Tech - I always start theory debates from a Truth > Tech default, however all it takes to sway me towards competing interpretations is literally just one solid warrant for it. This is one of my more controversial and widely disagreed on points and I have played with evaluating debates differently but I'm simply not comfortable with defaulting Tech > Truth in theory debates. If you're seriously curious about the nuances of this belief, feel free to grill me.**
 * CPs that do the entirety of the affirmative are probably illegitimate.
 * It is very unlikely that CPs competing on the "certainty" or "immediacy" of the plan are legitimate.
 * You should be held accountable for your interpretation, if I do not have an interpretation text, then it can really set up for some weird moments of miscommunication.

Neg on Presumption lol