Bass,+Ryan

Ryan Bass Years Debating: 3 years (all in college) Years Judging High School: 3 years

I am currently an Open debater at Liberty University. That being said, my predispositions are distinctly different than many other individuals from Liberty.

I evaluate debate largely as a pedagogical activity; that is, I think the education we get in debate is important for how we will interact with other people and shape our individual activisms as we leave the activity. What this means for you:


 * Topicality/Framework**- It may or may not be a voting issue. I can be persuaded that limits are key just as I can be persuaded that inclusion is more important. This is an issue that I tend to learn affirmative on, but I certainly feel for negatives that could not be prepared to thoroughly interrogate the affirmative. I think that many affirmatives have no answer to the “Framework/Topicality is key to actual examination/informed decision-making” argument, and this makes me sad. Worlds most nonstrategic framework argument- "you can join another activity where you can talk about your craziness". I hear "We like our Racist/Sexist/Exclusionary activity and think you should join another activity where we dont have to think about you" (See Theory for other related thoughts)


 * Kritiks-** I like them. I am in the literature. It does not take very much effort for me to understand the premise of your K. HOWEVER, if your explanation of your K in the 2nr is lacking, I will be very frustrated and will probably give the 2ar considerable weight on impact calculation. I think that affs should make two arguments that they never do: (1) that they should get to weigh the case impacts against the alt and (2) that that their specific language/representation/presentation has some benefits. Specific is better than generic. If you run a critical aff, be aware that the negative probably has some state links that may be better than your justification of the use of the state. The 2AR should carry offense through the debate- the neg will almost always win some kind of link.


 * Movements**- I would probably be a good judge for alternative affs. You must have a good defense of your use of alternative styles, as I am not afraid to vote on framework.


 * Counterplans**- They are great and fun to talk about. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to affs when the neg runs agent cps, consult cps, and multiple conditional cps. I think that international actor cps are probably cool, but I have no idea how they would be used on this topic.


 * Disads**- Being from Liberty, I am pretty good on these debates. Politics DAs make me sad (mainly because I have yet to hear a specific link to the affirmative trading off with x. Intrinsic perms may be persuasive and get rid of these das, but if the neg has a coherent story why they need this ground then I will not be sad enough to punish them in any way.

I dont understand why negs get to say that reps come first and then sever those reps because the k/framework/counterplan is conditional. Sounds like solvency for the permutation to me. Affs that point out that their severance perms bad blocks are probably a theoretical reason they cant kick the conditional advocacy will go far.
 * Theory**- Negs can probably have 1 conditional cp and 1 conditional K, although I can be persuaded that that could be bad. Teams that get their jollies by reading whatever they want conditionally and going with what is undercovered are not reading coherent strategies and can probably lose to theory. **IMPORTANT CAVEAT: IF YOU READ FRAMEWORK AND THEN ARGUMENTS THAT DONT MEET YOUR FRAMEWORK, I WONT BUY YOUR FRAMEWORK.** Commit to it. I have written a simple equation to make it clearer:
 * Roleplaying the state bad framework + conditional cp with the USFG as the agent = straight-turn**


 * Case**- Affs should use their case more, and negs should talk about it more. 3 minutes of case extension in the 1AR when the neg reads a PIC or K that might solve it is probably not a good idea.


 * Left-field arguments**- I have no problem with things like Spark or Wipeout or other seemingly counter-intuitive arguments. If you make them sound stupid, I will not be happy about voting for them. I do not think you always get your impact turn ground (i.e. Racism good, Sexism good). If you trivialize rape or domestic violence you will lose. Malthus is up in the air. You were warned.


 * All of this being said, I will vote for what you win. I can be persuaded to abandon any of my predispositions except for the importance of the education we get from rounds.**

Note**- after reading the philosophy of the smarter member of Liberty AB (Amanda Atkins for the curious), I feel compelled to clarify a little about cheap shots/tricky maneuvering. I think I might love them. There have been times when I have beaten a team that was better than me because they (A) kicked a DA poorly or (B) dropped an independent reason their spec arg was probably a bad advocacy. This DOES NOT MEAN if you say "voter" Ill buy it, but I think people should probably kick stuff better (even theory). Ive been burned once or twice on this too, so I dont understand why you shouldn't learn from my losses. Every so often a hail-mary is necessary, and I'm ok with that.