Neustadt,+David

David Neustadt BCC (Baltimore City College) 2012 Harvard 2016

__Edits pre Harvard 2017:__ I have no rounds on the current topic. Most of things here are still true, although I am substantially less likely now to read evidence in order to adjudicate a debate.

__EDITs PRE TOC 2013:__ I am probably more balanced on those hard right responses to the kritik I say I'm not friendly towards in the K section

__General Background__ I debated in high school for four years and am debating in college. I qualified to the TOC twice and debated in elims of the NCFL, NAUDL, and NFL, so I have probably heard your style/argument preference whether that is very traditional or very progressive. I have debated both speaker positions, although probably lean affirmative on theory questions more than many 2Ns.

__General Things__ I have done very little research on the transportation topic.

I will try to expend effort in adjudicating debates – I’ll do my best not to take the easy way out if there are other arguments that could complicate that argument. I’ll flow attentively. As a debater I know what its like to have a judge who you really don’t think gave you a fair shake, and I’ll try not to be that judge.

I will likely read evidence after the debate, although if one team is doing work comparing evidence and another isn’t I probably won’t. I appreciate quality evidence and will reward teams for having it. Quantity of cards that makes redundant arguments obviously matters less than quality of cards. I do not think evidence necessarily trumps argument, and rarely is evidence a substitute for argument.

Speed is fine – be clear. I should be able to hear the text of cards.

Tech is important. Truth is important. Having truth on your side is not a substitute for technical debating, and technical debating should not supplant macro-level vision of argument interaction and isolating important issues in the debate that might apply to significant portions of the flow even if not specifically applied there. I will assume dropped arguments are true, but the relative impact of this will depend on how well the argument is impacted in relation to other (especially macro-level) arguments.

Its possible to win zero risk of an argument, and I will probably be more willing than many to assign zero risk.

__Specific Arguments__

__T__ The affirmative should have a counter-interpretation. Reasonability as an argument as to why the Aff interpretation doesn’t have to be the best interpretation is compelling to me. The negative should be able to win that the Aff is unreasonable if you think you can go for this. Make sure to impact your standards if you’re neg. Honestly, I’m probably not the best judge for T, although obviously if you’re winning it I’ll vote on it, and if you’re good at it you shouldn’t be dissuaded from investing time in it.

__CP__ Nothing special here. Lean Aff on theory of cheating CPs like consult and such. Having a solvency advocate makes all CPs easier to win both theoretically and substantively if you’re neg.

__DA__ Impact calculus is important. Evidence comparison to resolve link and uniqueness issues is important.

__Case__ You should debate this.

__K__ I have pretty extensive experience debating these. This does not mean that I’ll be a fantastic neg biased judge – I think that in general if the Aff wins their 1AC impact they will win. This requires winning a framework argument you get your aff, a weighing argument (util), your impact is real, and responding to turns case/root cause arguments. Alt indicts are also always helpful. This is obviously a generic template and will not apply to all kritiks. I will probably not be the best judge for hard right responses to the kritik like heg good and realism, unless that is in defense of your 1AC impact in which case that is probably necessary. I am not ideologically opposed to these arguments but I find negative answers compelling.

__Non-Traditional Arguments__ I have pretty extensive experience answering and discussing these arguments. I will likely be receptive to your criticism. Articulating alternatives for whatever it is you’re criticizing is important. I will follow norms of technical argumentation and drops articulated above unless argued otherwise – arguments to change those norms might be uphill battles for a team to win. I also don't consider myself a poor judge for traditional framework arguments, if you're against one of these teams and that's your thing.