Chen,+Tommy

4 years of debate at James Logan High School, 1st year debater at Binghamton University

Frame the debate please - I default to who does the better debating? It's an objective question and one for the debaters to answer i PROBABLY also need a paradigm of analysis from which to evaluate arguments..... whether it's cost benefit analysis, antiblackness analysis, disability analysis, etc. there should be a paradigm of analysis, root cause to me isn't enough because there is no one root cause, just prove that your way of analysis can link all the types of oppression together so I can evaluate it Affirmatives: I should have more internal links than impacts in the 1AC, it protects you from advantage counterplans, process counterplans and lots of other counterplans. Also I think affs are lacking internal links these days.

CPs: I like them with net benefits, I hate word Pics, because their net benefits are minimal and don't really mean anything. I want counter plans that are functionally and textually competitive. Now you can run Words Pics, but you need to do a phenomenal job on the impact level.

T: I will default to competing interpretations. Now I'm going to have a different paradigm of regular topicality debates and topicality against kritikal teams.

T against Policy teams: Run them not as a time suck, but actually go for topicality or at least spend 5 minutes of the 1NR on it. I need a clear interpretation, a reason why they don't meet that interpretation, and a very, very clear articulation of the impacts. What does their affirmative pedagogy justify? What does that mean for our lives inside and outside of debate?

T against kritikal teams: You need to prove why a topical discussion outweighs a discussion of the topic. I think the most compelling argument here is the Limits Disad to most kritikal interpretations. Switch side debate is not compelling to me because policy teams barely, if ever, switch sides in terms of debating kritkal teams. First argument policy teams make against the K is Framework on the affirmative, and then they run framework on the neg. Ground is not compelling, because generic anthro kritiks and cap kritiks can work against kritikal affs and teams if debated correctly. Role playing and policy making arguments are not compelling to me, because we are not the USfg, and will never pass a real piece of legislation in a round. I really hate being in pretend world, because there is a real world outside of pretend world fiat. Now onto the limits argument, the limits argument has a very CLEAR impact to me. It's a question of depth over breadth. It's even more persuasive to me if they don't disclose on the wiki. Impact out the limits debate, and why it matters inside and outside of this debate round. Also I think more and more kritikal affirmatives are making framework and/or topicality the only argument that can be run against them. Be prepared and defend why topicality is good.

Framework: Above ^

Theory: Impact them out. I will not take into account theory arguments that are very blippy and are not impacted out well enough. I think conditionality and running 7-10 off is bad for debate. Trust me, I have seen it happen at the high school novice debate level and it does not make me happy to see novices throw shit at the wall instead of actually substantively debating the argument. Probably a good argument to go for in front of me, and how it produces bad debate that spills over to novices, then goes back up when they become varsity.

DAs: Specific Disadvantages to the plan make me happy. I will prefer that you run specific disadvantages relating to the oceans topic or about the plan than a generic politics Disad. I will have an entire section on what I expect a politics scenario/disad debate to look like

Politics DA: I prefer focus links, because I simply don't think Political Capital or special interest group links even matter to me anymore. The whole concept of special interest groups don't like the plan, means X doesn't pass is simply unconvincing to me. That's like saying we should trust the Koch brothers and the oil lobby because we simply believe that global warming will simply go away and that we can omit all the GHGs we want and not expect anything to happen. That is just blatantly false. The whole concept of Republicans or Democrats don't like the plan is unconvincing to me either. I especially hate the link Republicans hate the plan. I do not care if Republicans hate the plan, I believe Republicans only exist due to special interest groups helping them buy elections. Their views generally do not apply to a majority of Americans. If your plan is very progressive and liberal, I'm pretty sure that the most likely link is that Republicans hate the plan. If your plan is conservative, it is democrats hate the plan. Just prove that the plan is a good idea for the general public and all people living in America, not just Republicans or Democrats or special interest groups and I will be happy. Also I do believe that there should be a debate about whether the bill in its CURRENT form should be passed. An example of this would be the omnibus bill, in which if it is passed, we avoid a govt shutdown, and if it isn't, we save investment banks from bailing themselves out when they bankrupt the FDIC, and the taxpayers have to pay for it.

Ks: This is where you need to do a very, very good job on the kritik framing debate. What is the role of the judge? What is the role of the ballot? Why does it outweigh the policy benefits of their framework argument? What assumptions are problematic? Why is their ontology/epistemology/representations/discourse/etc. bad? I think affirmatives need a defense of their worldview against kritikal teams. Most likely our assumptions/ontology/epistemology/representations/discourse/etc. are good. If they say your ontology is bad, you say your ontology is good. It's even easier for me to believe you if you run an environmentally focused affirmative, whether policy or critical. I really want to see an environmental apocalypse rhetoric good/bad debate. Explain abstract theory, I do not understand D&G, lacan, pschyoanalysis, etc.

Anthro kritiks: I really hate the voluntary global suicide of humanity or whatever they call it nowadays alternative. Seriously, it recreates this binary where it assumes people always need to be separated from the environment or can't be harmonious with it. People, especially non Europeans, were harmonious with the environment until western dualistic thinking took over the world. Taoism advocated for balance and harmony with nature. Many indigneous religions across the world advocated for balance and harmony with nature. So instead of running a global suicide of humanity alternative, a run a better one that addresses the harmony that humans had with nature before colonial thought.

Kritiks against binary/dualism bad kritikal affirmatives: Here is my advice. Pick a binary, and cut cards on why that binary is good or a good way to analyze problems of X. Then run hardcore feminist kritiks. Male/female binary good, we should castrate and kill all those with penises to get rid of masculinity in the world. That may or may not include some trans/gay/bisexual men. You can also do black/white binary good, and use that as a specific method to analyze problems of antiblackness and run wilderson.

Performance: You can do these affirmatives in front of me. Just make arguments, and don't rely too much on the role of the judge or the role of the ballot. That said, for negative teams, since a lot of these kritikal performance affirmatives RELY SO MUCH on the role of the judge or the role of ballot. You can just impact turn these arguments, or win your role of the judge and your role of the ballot and why it is better.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I have judged 8 rounds on the oceans topic. Is the space elevators aff still being recycled?