Chestnut,+Noah

Noah Chestnut, USC Constraints: Northwestern, Tampa Prep

Debate to your strengths and do what you think gives you the best chance to win. While, I would much rather be listening to a 1nc strategy geared around an intricate and detailed 7 minutes on the case, it is your debate. With that said, there is one exception for where I am going to draw the line:

Framework: So, the aff has got to have a plan. No plan, no ballot. I want to judge debates, not discussions about debate. The quality of debate is so much better when there is a stable plan for both teams to debate over. A plan must be topical, i.e. it must include the agent of the resolution. This does not mean that I think the affirmative debaters have to simulate being that agent, but they should defend a world in which that agent does something. Debate is a question about should, and plan’s are key to making that possible.

Theory at large: I wish aff’s were more creative with perms. For some reason intrinsicness has been demonized and is 99% of the time rejected on principle. I am not convinced that this is a positive development for debate. As a general rule, I believe in reciprocity, not punishment.

For the neg, you can basically do whatever you want as long as you can defend it. And any argument/strategy worth running should/can be defended.

Impact Calc – More comparison and more evidence should be the rule of thumb. Instead of saying that your da has a quick timeframe try to answer a question, such as why does a high magnitude, long timeframe advantage not outweigh your quicker timeframe, smaller impact?

K’s – Should demonstrate a reason to reject the plan not the resolution. Specificity reigns, as it does with every other argument. Some of the best k arguments point out a team’s shallow thinking, be it in their assumptions or representations about a specific entity or process. For the aff, many k alternatives are vulnerable too this very type of analysis. I find myself frustrated by aff’s that attempt to link turn without thoroughly challenging the alternative.

Evidence: Evidence quality trumps spin. To be clear, evidence comparison is not synonymous with spin and comparison should focus on not only qualifications and timeliness, but the factual basis used to obtain certain conclusions.