Caplan,+Will

Chattahoochee High School ‘12 University of Georgia ‘16 Qualified to 2013 and 2014 National Debate Tournaments Affiliations- Gulliver Prep

Short Version- Do what you are good at. If you think I won't be able to understand something, explain it. I come from a policy background but I'll be able to keep up in a K debate.

Topicality- I default to competing interpretations on topicality, although I can be convinced otherwise. If an aff is egregiously not topical, then I will listen with sympathetic ears. Be sure to describe what the topic looks like under your interpretation and impact standards well. Good T interpretations are well-researched- not things thrown together in the 5 minutes before the round. Listing 10 teams that read a certain aff means absolutely nothing to me. Impacting and diversifying your standards are key - just like you would with a disad, do calculus between your interpretation and the other side's.

Framework/Performance/K Aff's- Despite the fact that I have only read policy aff's in my debate career, I have a mixed record when it comes to voting for framework. I think this is primarily because the neg doesn't take a hard enough stance on the issue and the aff has enough offense to win while dilluting the neg impacts to just about nothing. Better debating needs to happen on the negative for me to vote for your interpretation. It's not hard for me to pull the trigger, but the arguments must be there. Both sides need to actually impact the reasons their view of debate is good. The neg repeating the same 2-3 "policy" buzzwords is not getting it done anymore.

Counterplans- Obviously a fan. I don’t really have any predispositions for theoretically questionable counterplans like consult, process, condition or any other cp’s. I find that they are very interesting and, if well researched/debated, can be very strategic. However, if theory is argued well by the affirmative (although I don’t think it often is), the neg could be in some trouble.

Other theory- If you plan on going for some theoretical argument in front of me, making it a decent time investment is key to really winning it. Read this section with that in mind. Less conditional advocacies is better- 1 or less is in the clear, 2 is probably ok, and 3 is really pushing your luck. Conditionality should be well argued and impacted by the affirmative if you plan on going for it. Kicking multiple counterplan planks is the same thing as Conditionality in my book- if you read a cp with 15 planks and say you can kick planks then I feel like you just read 15 counterplans. I won't dismiss any theory argument, so long as it is well explained. Reject the argument, not the team seems to be the proper remedy for most theoretical objections.

Da/Case- Yes please. I like politics. I generally think that the plan doesn't go to the bottom of the docket and as a logical policymaker I have to assess the opportunity cost of the plan against the disad. All my random stuff at the bottom will help you debate disads better in front of me.

Impact turn debate- Fun stuff. A sloppy impact turn debate is bad. However, a very technically proficient impact turn debate going both ways is awesome.

Kritiks- The more left on the K continuum you go, the more explaining you will have to do. If the 2ac straight up doesn't say anything responsive against the K, I'll be able tell and you should probably at least extend it in this world. Applying the k specifically to the case makes it easier for me to vote for it. Dropping tricks in the 2nc on the K is smart and encouraged. I find that the aff almost always gets to weigh case vs. the impacts of the k. If you're aff against the K in front of me, be sure to actually answer the reasons the K comes first, tricks, VTL, ect. Answering the "checklist" arguments then winning any aff impact is usually enough for me to vote against the K. Bad K debates are the worst. things. ever. If you think I am talking about you right now, don't go for the K. To quote a friend of mine "when I hear one off in the 1NC roadmap, I throw up a little bit." Floating Piks are probably illegit, but if I hear the floating PIK and the aff drops it, well, good game.

Clipping/Stealing Prep/Any form of cheating- Please don't do it. I will vote against you

Other helpful things -Please do impact calc- literally no excuse not to. -Kicking the aff and going for just offense on a da in the 1ar or 2ar is awesome. -I really enjoy humor- especially at the expense of Chetan Hebbale and Robert Galerstein. -You should be able to tell by my facial expressions how I am reacting to the argument you are making- use this to your advantage. -You absolutely do not need evidence to make an argument. -Presumption goes to less change. -You need to tell me to kick the CP or alt in the 2nr, or say that status quo is always a logical option for me as a judge, otherwise I stick you to it. However, if the aff tells me not to kick the CP or alt and has a well warranted reason why not, then I won't.