Fields-Lefkovic,+Alex

I debated for four years at Pine Crest and for a year at Cornell.

An important disclaimer: Do what you do best. Everything outlined below reflects my predispositions, which can be overcome through quality debating.

General Information: I lean towards tech over truth, although it should be easier to win your arguments if you are on the side of truth. I believe that cross-x is binding and extremely important, so use it wisely. I won’t default to a strict offense-defense paradigm but I will give greater weight to logical, defensive arguments than most judges would. Similarly, I am also a big fan of intelligent analytic arguments. Big case debates (including impact turns) are great and should be utilized more. I also value quality research and am willing to read any evidence that you flag as important during the round (but it should be sufficiently impacted and explained beforehand, I won’t do the work for you). Make sure to always keep the big picture in mind and use concise overviews to frame the end of debate and my decision.

Topicality: I really enjoy these debates if they are executed well. I lean towards competing interpretations rather than reasonability. These violations should have comparative and in-depth internal link comparisons. Having case lists and explaining what the topic would look like under your interpretation are a must.

Theory: Like T, these debates can be great if they are impacted well and if they go beyond just reading blocks. I feel that most theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument, rather than rejecting the team. However, any of these arguments, especially multiple conditional options bad, can definitely become reasons to reject the team if impacted as such.

CPs: Go for them. Counterplans should be competitive and legitimate, while not containing the entirety of the plan. However, you can still try to run process, conditions, consult, etc with a good justification for why they should be allowed. If you don’t have a solvency advocate for your CP, you probably shouldn’t read it.

DAs: Always great. Comparative impact calculus is critical, especially for explaining why your scenarios preclude their scenarios. Strongly comparing and contesting the internal link chain can go a long way, especially for more contrived DAs. Usually, link controls the direction of uniqueness.

Ks: These are fine, but I prefer traditional policy arguments. I’m fairly familiar with mainstream Ks (cap, security, etc), but require a higher level of explanation if you’re going for these arguments. Contextualizing your links to specific parts of the 1AC and turns case analysis will go a long way. Affs should be wary of K tricks and concentrate on contesting alt solvency and explaining why case outweighs, rather than using framework as a reason to entirely exclude the K. Kritikal affirmatives are fine, but should defend plan action by the USFG and be germane to the topic.

Non-traditional /Project Affs: I am somewhat receptive towards these arguments, but really prefer affs that defend a plan enacted by the USFG. M any of these affs are already constructed to beat framework and would probably be defeated easier by a kritik, counter-advocacy, or case turns. If you're itching to go for framework, it would be effective to make those arguments in the context of a topicality violation. Also, playing music off a computer does not constitute a performance (as opposed to reciting poetry, singing, etc.) because it fails to capture its musical and aesthetic elements. If you're neg vs. an aff like this, please point this out and impact it as a solvency deficit.

Speaker Points: My range for speaker points is 26-30 and I try to be as fair as possible with them. I think that speaking clearly is extremely important. Doing this will be enormously beneficial to you and my flow, but failing to do this will definitely hurt your speaker points. Cross-x is also important in shaping how I give speaker points.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask pre-round.