Autry,+Joseph

 I just finished my last year in Varsity college debate at Liberty University. I produced the first aff for our high school debate camp. So I am well versed in the topic’s literature. I’ve judged multiple rounds this year, and have heard a lot of the arguments being run this year.

DAs: The link story is the most important part of the DA. The negative needs to explain how the aff links and how this leads to the impacts. Simply shadow extending cards is not enough. There needs to be analysis. There needs to be analysis from the aff on the link and impact level as well. This analysis should be flushed out in the block, and be elaborated throughout the debate. Analysis on the differences between the affirmative’s impacts and the DA’s impacts can outweigh the link level. However, there needs to be analysis on why the impact level would cause me to vote on any risk of the link. The 1AC is offense against the neg arguments, and you should use it. You need to go beyond the frontline.

Counterplans: I usually give free roam to the neg to run any CP, but that is only if the aff doesn’t challenge it. The neg is able to run abusive CPs, but this just makes it easier for the aff to challenge it on theory. Obviously, there are different CPs that are more abusive than others, but there should be analysis on why there is in round abuse. Each side should provide reasons why the CP will or will not solve the aff. The net benefit is also key. If the net benefit outweighs the risk of lack of solvency, I am more likely to vote neg. As far as the generic agent CPs, I have produced more than one CP on agent CPs like courts and congress. This means I’m more likely to pick on the lingo related to how the different sections of the government operate.

Theory: My opinion of theory has changed over my debate career, and I am much more willing to vote on theory. It really depends on the topic. However, I do have a high threshold for theory. If there is a certain neg bias to the topic, then I am more willing to buy the abuse, but like topicality, this a debate about competing interpretations and violations. Theory should be treated like any other part of the debate. This means that there should be impact and analysis. Usually, teams will just run their theory blocks, and not go the next level of analysis. If you want me to vote on theory, you need to go for it just like going for a DA, K, CP, etc. Each side should provide reasons why I should take their theory violations over the other team’s. I am willing to vote on arguments like reasonability and reject the argument and not the team, but there needs to be more time spent on it. If theory is dropped, then it is an automatic voter.

Topicality: Like theory, topicality is an automatic voter when dropped. Topicality is a debate of competing interpretations, and each side needs to provide reasons why I should take their interpretation. These are reasons like how the aff effects the education and limits of the topic. If the aff isn’t really that untopical, then I am more willing to accept standards like reasonability, but affs that go outside of the resolution increased the likelihood of just accepting reasonability. There needs to be more reasons than reasonability. If you are going for topicality, then you need to go for it. This cannot just be shadow extensions in the 2NR.

Case: Like I said above, I made the aff for Liberty’s high school debate camp, and I am well versed in the topic literature. This means I am likely to pick up the turns like proliferation and deterrence. The most important thing about case is that it is the aff’s biggest offense to the neg’s arguments. This means that if the neg is going for a DA and case. The neg needs to provide reasons why the aff’s impacts are mitigated in relations to the DA.

No Plan Text/Framework Over the last couple years, I’ve grown more accustomed to affs that don’t have a plan text, and critical literature. There are legitimate reasons why you can run affs with a plan text, but this needs to be flushed out in the debate. This usually gets flushed out on the framework flow. I will vote on framework, but I think the problem is that the framework flow has no clash from either team. The neg you should give me reasons on why impacts like education outweigh the philosophical notions or theoretical notions of the aff.

Kritiks: I have read anything from victimhood to Queer Theory in round. I have read many of the books from Heidegger, Butler, Foucault, etc. This means I am well versed in the literature. Even if I have not read the kritik in round, I am likely to understand the concept because I have read a lot of postmodern literature and different theorists. The biggest problem that I think K teams have is that they don’t engage the aff. The neg needs to address the line by line as well. Blocks are fine, but you need to go beyond that. This does not mean that I won’t pick up an aff against a K. I was a 2A for a long time, and I am definitely willing to pick up the aff on their arguments against the K. Consequentialism, Pragmatism, etc. are still legitimate arguments against the K. Like I said above, the aff is the affirmative’s biggest weapon against the neg’s arguments.

Performance: I am open to debate that may not be considered normal, but the team must explain why this is necessary. It is not enough to act out something or tell a narrative. You must respond to the other team.

Impact analysis: I felt it necessary to put this in here. The last two speeches must have analysis of why I should vote for you. If this comes down to terminal impacts, you must tell me why your impact is more important than the opponent. This is the same for critical debates. There should be reasons why your critical impacts should taken first, or why your terminal impact should be taken first.