Karschner,+Ben

My name’s Ben Karschner and I debated for Millard South in high school for 4 years.

Affirmatives: I’m relatively new to the transportation topic but I think many of the big stick affirmatives with hegemony and economy advantages should have strong internal link stories and tangible large scale impacts. I think critical affirmatives should at least affirm the resolution or win a reason why their framework access’s the resolution; critical affirmatives that are blatantly anti-topical should win some form of role of the ballot or framework that warrants the opposition to an affirmation of the resolution.

Disadvantages: Politics Disads should be well explained and link heavy in the block, winning a brink to the impact is also probably important in all disad debates and impact calculus in the rebuttals usually leads to better clash and makes my decision easier and more clear-cut.

Counterplans: Strong net benefits and offense on the perm debate is key to a good counterplan strategy in my opinion. The perm is usually your best bet as the affirmative in a counterplan debate.

Kritiks: I’m fairly well versed in critical literature and I ran critical affirmative most of my years in high school. Have good overview explanations of your Kritiks in the 2NC and win the framework debate and you have a good chance of winning the Kritik in front of me.

Topicality/Theory/Framework: I have a high tolerance to topicality, but I think bi-directionality, depth over breadth and extra-topicality are persuading arguments. I think theory is usually only a reason for me to reject the argument, not the team. Framework is important in the Kritik debate and that its essential to win some form of framework to win your impact-framing or epistemology for the Kritik.