Bircher,+Patrick

Please add me to the Email chain: patrick.bircher7@gmail.com Top Level: Everything on this paradigm comes with the disclaimer: Don't let my preferences change what you do in round. I would rather you make a great argument that I am not familiar with than a bad argument that I know. I believe that Affirmatives must defend the resolution. Read more about specifics below Tech over Truth, unless the argument is something explicitly offensive Please be respectful to your opponents I believe that debate is a game. People play games for different reasons, whether that be to simply have fun, to win, or whatever it may be, just play your game. Topicality: T is often a very strategic argument, but not deployed effectively by both sides. It is always a voter and never a reverse voter. I tend to default to competing interpretations, however a strong defense of reasonability can be persuasive Reasonability is a way to evaluate two different interpretations. It is not whether your aff is close, but whether your interpretation is okay for debate. I think that most debates revolve around the standards debate, and innovative takes on the classic standards (limits, ground, etc) are greatly appreciated. Framework/ Topicality vs. Planless Affs: I am heavily persuaded by Framework arguments, and I prefer debates about governmental action and the specifics of the topic. Arguments centered around research practices or method debates are much more persuasive than generic fairness impacts. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Arguments like Topical Version of the Aff or Switch Side Debate can be used very effectively, however should not be used as offense. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Planless Affirmatives vs. Framework <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I know I am not your first choice as a judge, but regardless of my preferences, I am willing to vote for not-topical affirmatives. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Use your aff specifically as offense, rather than deploying a more generic "roleplaying bad" argument. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Having your own interpretation of the words in the topic is important. Most neg definitions are pretty self-serving, and having a defense to that can be very helpful, unless your offense is specifically designed to counter that. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Disads: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Impact comparison is extremely valuable, however it should not come at the expense of in depth link and internal link analysis. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Turns case arguments and specific links are greatly appreciated <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Counterplans: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Counterplans are one of the most strategic arguments in all of debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">In depth and nuanced counterplans are extremely persuasive <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will default to sufficiency framing, unless otherwise told so <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Affs-don't heg your bets on theory, but rather use your aff as offense against the substance of the CP <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Kritiks: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I am probably not well versed in the literature of your criticism, so please explain arguments as if I have very little knowledge about what your are saying, because I do. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Explain how the K can change existing institutions or current governmental policies. Absent a clear explanation of how the alt works given the status quo it will be difficult for me to vote for you. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Clear, consise links to the mechanism of the aff, rather than just the actor go a long way. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Case: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">The must underused, but most effective part of any debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I found that aff teams have a difficult time answering offense on case. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Use a combination of offense and defense on case in partnership with your off case to effectively win neg debates. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">If the 2nr is not T, some part of the speech should involve case. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Theory:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Everything except conditionality is a reason to reject the argument <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Condo is probably good, and unless it is extremely well argued or dropped I will probably default neg. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Any questions please feel free to email me.