Cajanding,+Justin

-Experience- 4 years debating at Damien HS (2011-2015) currently taking a break from debating at Stanford University -Content- No particular argument preferences, do whatever you feel you're best at and have fun. You should know that I've had very little interaction with the current Surveillance topic either in judging or doing research on the topic. K -These are the types of debates I enjoy judging the most. My senior year was comprised almost entirely with going for some sort of critique of anti-blackness but I should be familiar with most authors or portions of critical theory that you may read from. Although rounds in which the K is deployed are my favorite rounds to judge, I really would like to see more specificity in the development of a specific link story that interacts with multiple potentially problematic portions of the affirmative. Absent that, reaching the extent of your impact scenarios and remaining unsusceptible to permutations becomes difficult in my mind. I do not find affirmative framework interpretations that exclude all critical alternatives or perspectives as persuasive. "Non-traditional/performance" affs - Love them. Do as you wish. F/W - I think you can go for framework against K affs but there are somethings caveats I do have. While I think framework needs to be beyond simply theoretical pushes regarding fairness and predictability, I find very questionable the idea that the majority of K affs do not access some if not all the skills to be gained from the traditional way of interacting with this activity and feel most aff teams will most definitely not only be more prepared to clash in this sort of debate but also begin the process of setting up this debate much earlier. Additionally, it goes without saying that regardless of the extent of the framework debate and the level of its interaction with other pages, answering and engaging with what was actually said in the 1AC is very important and absent that, even how I should evaluate any of the substantive portions of framework can drastically change. CPs - Sure. Exploit any generic link chains or advantages to the aff just be cautious of cheating too much with illegit process CPs (unless you can defend it, that's cool too.) Going for theory on the CP is fine with me but well developed impact calculus that I can actually catch outside of a 2 second blip is very much key. Condo is sometimes good. DAs - Also fine, but I think you can go very far with smart analytics on the majority of bad disadvantages. On point evidence comparison and not dropping crucial things like DA turns or solves the case is important throughout the entire debate. T - In-depth impact comparison beyond repetitively talking about the internal links is crucial to going for T in front of me. Competing interpretations is generally more persuasive to me than reasonability claims but that's less of a personal opinion and more of a lack of substantiation in the debate proper. Again, I have very limited experience with this year's res so I'll be very reliant on the spin in these debates rather than being informed by popular perception as to whether an aff is considered topical or not after working at an institute or extensively during the season. Other thoughts/misc - No prep for flashing, just don't take forever. Please keep track of your own prep. Questions or Concerns? email me at jcajan96@stanford.edu