Louvis,+Ezra

Ezra Louvis Georgetown '17 Constraints: Stuyvesant

I debated for four years in high school at Stuyvesant and I'm a freshman debater at Georgetown. Just a note: I don't have all that much knowledge of the topic so explain acronyms and be extra clear on T debates. My argument background is fairly diverse, I read a lot of critical arguments senior year of high school, but mostly policy stuff before that (and now).

I tend to agree with the common request of more impact calculus in high school debates, however I would add one caveat: make sure everything is clearly impacted and then do impact calculus. Basically focusing on impact claims should not come at the expense of argument clarity. It's great when teams are able to contextualize their aff or neg positions in the context of current worldly affairs or use that knowledge to make smart analytics. I would much rather vote off of well explained evidence than to call for it (obviously this isn't always possible). Finally, aggressive cross exs are fun to watch but not when they become belligerent, be confident enough to ask questions that make the other team answer the way you want without forcing them into it.
 * __General/Random Thoughts__**

T - I've always been a fan, I have a higher threshold for spec arguments or seemingly ridiculous interpretations, but that does not mean I won't vote for them if they're debated well. Impacting standards both in terms of their effect in-round and what they mean for the topic is important and probably necessary. I think a lot of people put too much emphasis on reasonability, if the neg wins their impacts the aff is probably unreasonable by default. That's not to say reasonability isn't important, but it should not come at the expense of winning your interpretation or impact claims.
 * __Argument stuff__**

CPs - I've always been a fan of well researched PIC strategies. If a CP has competition issues, make sure the relevant distinctions are well explained otherwise it will make my decision unnecessarily difficult. In terms of theory, I tend to err neg on most things, consult counterplans is probably where the scale tips a bit.

DAs - Impact calculus is important, but as I said above having a clear link chain is good too. Try to know something about the political debates or major players having to do with the politics DA, it's a perceptual boost and makes the debate a lot more interesting. Big disad and case neg blocks are pretty neat if executed well.

Ks - Have clearly explained link claims and a grasp of the theory behind the criticism. The latter is especially important for speaker points since a lot of times it makes difference between a high or low level debate. Making arguments based off of 1ac and 2ac evidence is a must and is probably more valuable than reading an extra card or two. Aff teams should try to tailor their answers to the critique even if their evidence is generic. I'm familiar with a number of critique areas, but that should not be a substitute for explanation.

K/Performance affs - all of these are fine, for the aff, winning the thesis of the 1ac is important, along the same lines the neg should try to engage the case on some level even if it's just defense (that can go a long way too).