Nelson,+Joseph

George Washington University '16 - Currently debating
Tech>Truth.

Debate is a game, and this is the way I view it. I will not reject any argument; however, this will give you a better understanding of which arguments with which I am most familiar and how I debated, so you have an understanding of how to best convince me to vote for you. Any defaults can be changed if you win the argument.


 * Too long, didn't read:** Sad, you should care more about what the person whose ballot you're trying to win thinks. I lean towards policy "straight up" but am a fine judge for typical Ks and less good, yet sufficient, judge for other Ks. __//Good//__ ptx debates are cool. Don't hesitate to go for theory if you ACTUALLY can*. Ask me questions.

Strongly prefer plan debate--I will simply be a better judge for these rounds. However, it's not a decision rule.
 * Plan vs no plan**

Winning your interpretation is better requires a well-impacted 2NR/2AR. Not only why it's more fair, limiting, etc. in this round for this aff, but why it's a better interp for the entire topic. This requires case lists and probably a topical version of the aff. If your interp doesn't allow the aff, win why its area of the topic is bad education or an explosion of limits. Good T debates rock, but bad T debates kill me slowly. I default to reasonability if it's not discussed, but competing interpretations can be a good way to define the topic.
 * Topicality**

Neg--Establish competition in CX; it'll make your lives easier. The more specific to the aff, the better. Thus, for a generic conditions, consult, delay, or PIC that can be read on any topic, I'll have a lower threshold for theory. If your CP has solvency advocates in the context of the aff for any of the previous (especially PICs), they become less suspect. That said, theory is still probably the aff's best answer.
 * CPs**

Great for "traditional" K debates--security, capitalism, Heidegger, Foucault, etc. Fine with other authors--Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bataille, Wilderson, etc. Assume you'll need more explanation rather than less if this is your strat. Tailor your K to the aff as much as possible. I know K tricks and will vote on them, but I won't feel too happy about it. (You should not need a dropped cheap-shot to win your K)
 * Kritiks**

U/X doesn't control direction of the link (you can win it does, but you're dropping the IQs of everyone in the room). There is such thing as zero risk (like a dropped "no link" argument). A //__GOOD__// ptx debate is sweet. (The START ptx DA was my favorite DA my junior year.)
 * DAs**

Like T, a good theory debate is awesome and terrible theory debates are the worst. You need to //__impact__// your arguments just like DAs, explaining why fairness may turn education, etc. Win why your model for debate better for debate as a whole. Jarrod Atchison rightly points out conditionality is getting out of hand lately, but that's because affs are bad at going for theory. If you cannot talk about why //___X___// is bad for debate without your blocks for 5 minutes, do you really think you can win on theory?
 * Theoretical questions**

I think this is an area that debaters need to make clear (and frequently fail to) with judges before rounds. Will I as a judge be more apt to listen to the spin you put on the other team's evidence or call for it to read it myself? Controlling spin is key, but there is a line: don't lie (this should be obvious..you'd be surprised). More apt to call cards on ptx debates, but if I find a warrant that you could have capitalized on (assuming the ev isn't out of context); I won't do the spin/work for you.
 * Spin vs. Evidence**

To get good speaker points: -Be polite -Be good at CX -Be funny -Make fun of Tyler Salathe