Ostrovsky,+Alan

Alan Ostrovsky

Debated 4 years highschool and 3 college.

I generally vote on any argument that is well developed and impacted, unless the other team solves that. Then I vote for them. I'm partial to arguments that don't seek to promote hatred, disgust or violence towards others. In other words, if you run util good and I vote for you, not gonna get stellar speaks. That being said, do what you do best, don't be scared to run your traditional positions, it's why you came to the tournament maybe. I just won't think you're very interesting. But seriously, I'm kidding, don't strike me, I can flow well enough and will evaluate through whatever framework you tell me to. And strategy over tech, there's no drop if it is answered by the overarching thesis.

Other debate stuff:

Disads: They're good, but I'm probably not up on the research area. I think the scenarios most times are silly. But I usually vote for them anyway. Offense is cool, but I like the defense on disads like alt causalities and internal link take outs, anything that undermines the legitimacy of the argument.

Case: Great. Love it. Recently I started liking it for both teams.

Theory: It's cool, just make it persuasive, flowable and impacted well. And if you have an interpretation of whatever it is you say is good or bad, like conditionality, even better. Cause then most of their generic conditionality business doesn't apply and your argument looks all topicality style professional, so you can make those "They don't have a counter interp, don't meet, and conceded you evaluate theory based on competing interpretations" arguments.

CP: Seems like a theory question also. Put net benefits on a separate sheet.

Topicality: I haven't run a topical plan for a few years so I have a high threshold on voting on procedurals unless they're dropped, so make sure your impacts are good. For example, you should tell me why losing relations disads is devastating to negative strategy, not just you can't run something.

Kritiks: Don't forget to use this flow to impact the rest of the round. Don't be afraid to deny the aff their post plan ground either. If the aff has a <5 month extinction impact or won't be able to affect policy until they're 30, then they've probably nullified their own plan anyway.

Performance: If you can, do it.

More things: Be thoughtful to each other. Open cx is cool but don't dominate your partner.

Framework is a pretty important question because I probably don't default like a lot of other judges, like to switch side. A lot of times I default to whichever team best communicates a methodology of resistance and critical education from the individual level. So, if you want to run contradictory positions, be sure to justify that. An interrogation of personal politics over technical debate gets me to sleep at night.