Baker,+Zach

I currently compete as a varsity policy debater with Weber State, in my first year with the team. I have 4 years of experience debating traditional LD, progressive LD, and policy in high school. My favored arguments were/are: Baudrillard, Foucault/Agamben, Topicality/Framework, and International Relations theory. I have better than average familiarity with the Marx and Nietzsche literature bases, but will need extra articulation on in-depth anti-blackness or colonialism debates. That being said, I consider it extremely important that debaters feel freedom to be creative and comfortable with their argumentative strategies. General Rules: I only read evidence after the round if the quality of the evidence was mentioned in a speech as an argument. Flashing is not prep, but if I or your opponent catch you cheating you will lose speaks and I will be hard-pressed to vote for you. If your overview exceeds 30 seconds, tell me to get a new piece of paper. Also, probably don't have long overviews in front of me. I much prefer to see impact calculation and evidence extension on the line-by-line. Affirmatives: Intelligent preempts to common negative arguments are a plus. However, I am a bit chagrined when the affirmative reads tags that say "their evidence is bad" in the 1AC. Please don't leave me guessing about the terminal impact. Use flowable tags- paragraph-long tag lines may be strategic for you, but don't be surprised if I don't flow every nuance. Be persuasive! A lot of people see the 1AC as a chance to info-dump and figure they will articulate in the rebuttals, but I think the 1AC is a great chance to slow down a couple times and actually communicate an argument to me. Throw in some emotion or something and I might even reward you with speaker points. It is possible to not win any risk of solvency just as it is possible to win no risk of a link. Topicality/Framework: I consider the interpretation level debate to be very important. Getting lost on line-by-line debates about your topic literacy impacts doesn't help me if it doesn't resolve the strategic tension between your two interpretations. I always default to the negative interpretation absent a counter-interp. I don't think it is necessary to generate "external offense." I am not very convinced by spill-over and advocacy arguments and would prefer a sound analysis of ground or limits questions. As a general rule, I think fairness has a slight edge over education as a voter, but can be convinced otherwise. Kritiks: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If it has a link, an impact, an alt, and relates to theory in some way, I can vote on it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"Links are Disads to the perm" is not a complete argument until you describe what that disadvantage might be. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"I am winning root cause" is an interesting factoid absent an articulation of how that plays into the solvency debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Even if your opponent drops your alternative, you still need to extend and explain it in the rebuttals. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Be sure to establish layering for your issues- if stacked with T, do your fairness or structural violence claims come first? <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Disadvantages: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I find creative and applicable disads to be the most interesting (absent my favorite k) debate arguments. I will reward them. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">DA's that don't endlessly recur to extinction paranoia are also a breath of fresh air. Impact calculation is possible to win without extinction, and I have no favoritism for magnitude over probability. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you want to put your DA's on case as turn arguments, I won't mind. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to negative conditionality, but excessive off-case positions and contradictory impact scenarios make me cranky. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Counter-Plans: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Read your plan text at a reasonable speed- it is hard to adjudicate perms if I can't tell what the subtle difference between the CP and the AFF is. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I prefer when the source of competition, either exclusivity or net benefit, is made clear in the 1NC. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Perms should be explained in their function- "do both" is not sufficient. I scowl at blippy perm advocacies that get expanded far beyond their initial interpretation after the negative can respond. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Even if your CP is exclusive, you should be talking about net benefits. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Theory: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think theory can be a very strong strategic weapon for debaters, and have no inherent qualms about whether it seems "frivolous." However, I am not inclined to vote on a theory argument without a clear articulation of abuse. Potential abuse is sufficient, but please be specific about what that potential actually was. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think theory can be divided into two camps- argument theory (like condo bad) and performance theory (like disclosure). I am much more comfortable adjudicating argument theory, and would prefer that, if possible, debaters didn't go for performance theory. My default standard of evaluation for argument theory is competing interps, but I start from a position of reasonability with performance theory. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It is very, very hard to imagine a scenario where I would drop a traditional LD debater on performance theory. If you are winning a substance argument, go for that instead of theory. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you are prepared, respectful, and creative, what could possibly go wrong?