Powell,+Quinn

I debated at Notre Dame for 4 years and just recently graduated. I don’t know a ton about this topic yet but I learn very quickly and I’m learning more about it all the time. I’ve gone for most arguments on the negative, but last year primarily went for impact turns, the Fear/security K, or politics. I’ll pay very close attention to the debate and be just as interested in it after the round as if I was debating.

I really enjoy watching debates no matter what arguments are being run and there is almost nothing I won’t vote on aside from morally repugnant arguments such as “homophobia good”, but feel free to run nuclear Malthus, kritiks, etc. At the end of the debate I would just like you to impact and explain everything as much as possible; if my RFD can directly reflect what is said in the rebuttals, then that’s great.

I’ll reward speaker points primarily on the following things: -  Cross-examination. Nothing is more entertaining as a spectator than watching someone dominate and embarrass another person in cross-x about the quality of their evidence or blatant contradictions in their speeches. Feel free to be as aggressive or sarcastic as possible without being an outright jerk -  Comparison – both of evidence and arguments. Please do more than say why your author is qualified or why your impacts are more likely. Again, I’d like to be able to draw from your speeches exactly why I evaluated your piece of evidence more favorably than your opponent’s. -  Ethos. The words you say are a lot more important than how you say them, but don’t put me to sleep

Here are my views on some specific areas:

1.  Theory – I think probably 90 percent of “voting issues” are not actually voting issues. I will not vote against a team solely because the 1AR drops severance¸ and in most cases the argument should be rejected, not the team, and saying that is pretty much enough for me. When going for a theory argument, just make sure to impact it really well and try to point out some actual abuse that occurred¸ and have a counter interpretation that is fair for both sides. I think conditionality is good, multiple conditional advocacies are worse but probably still okay, but you can definitely get me to vote aff if you impact your args well enough. Process counterplans/anything that does the whole plan = dumb, highly abusive, and bad for debate. If you can refrain from running these then please do, as I will almost always agree with the aff on theory. Also note that on these obviously more abusive counterplans, I __am__ willing to vote against a team for running them if the affirmative gives compelling reasons why either their overall strategy was affected or why the quality of the debate was reduced.

2.  Topicality – I’ll default to competing interpretations, but if it’s really close at the end of the debate I’m more inclined to vote affirmative. When going for T the negative should give a list of topical affs under their interpretation and list all of the ground that was lost. Reading cards that prove why the aff explodes the topic is also a big plus. I generally think a smaller topic is better.

3.  You should note that I have a very high standard for counterplan competition. Competition through net benefits is usually fine, but when it comes to process CPs and other PICs I’m very likely to vote on a perm unless the plan __necessitates__ doing more than the counterplan, or the 1A answers a dumb question in cross-x. For example, if a plan “incentivizes alternative energy” and a counterplan “incentivizes solar energy”, I don’t really think that’s competitive because the plan doesn’t specify anything beyond alternative energy and solar is just an example of that.

4.  Kritiks – Neg: you can run reps Ks, capitalism, Nietzsche, sound really smart or use big words all you want, but at the end of the debate if you don’t have very specific reasons why the K turns each advantage then I’m probably just going to vote aff. I’m fine with most K’s but I haven’t read a ton of literature, but if you’re good then that shouldn’t be a problem. When running the K there is a ton of potential for very high speaker points if you can be REALLY specific in analyzing the aff’s evidence, quoting cross-x, giving historical examples, etc but overall I am pretty tired of bad kritik rounds. “Fiat is illusory” is obviously stupid, but I will vote on “x comes first” arguments if you tell me why the K actually undermines the reason I would vote for the affirmative. Things you just shouldn’t do: forget about your alternative in the 2nr, advocate the plan in any way, try and convince me my ballot truly literally is some kind of symbol or will start or contribute to a revolution.

Aff: I like very straightforward stuff. Link defense helps against all their turns the case args, as the negative usually will try and twist or exaggerate your words. Just like the neg, you shouldn’t forget about your case either, and always ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK the alt’s ability to provide uniqueness for the K and solve your case. Don’t drop stupid hidden floating PICs or anything like that, cause I actually am more likely to vote on these dropped args than on things like severance bad.

Framework: Aff gets to weigh their advantages. If you need to rely on “fiat is illusory” to win the debate then just don’t run the K. I’m very unlikely to not let the neg get their alternative, and I also don’t really like this new “need an agent to your alternative” argument, as long as the alt isn’t TOO shifty (you do need a text). Regardless, most alternatives probably don’t solve all the aff and are poorly debated.

5.  Finally, please try and make all your arguments as early as possible. I really don’t like new arguments even in the 1AR unless you explicitly justify them. I was a 2N so maybe I’m a little less likely to listen to “new 2AR spin” or whatever you wanna call it. The 1AR should do impact calculus and tell me how arguments interact just like the 2NR/2AR. However if the other team lets you get away with stuff, go for it.