Wolch,+Benjamin

Policy args are chill too.

Should affs be topical?

= #Access = Debated for four years in high school.

- Generic process counterplans are for bad debaters.

- When I was younger, I used to ride my bike without a helmet, but then one day I fell and starting bleeding.


 * __ - I am a young judge so I can’t be exactly sure what all of my specific preferences are – everything below this bullet point is just an educated guess on how I will judge your debate. __**

- **I judge debates very technically.** However, don't be surprised if I find a bad theory argument (like generic PICs bad) less convincing. - German battleships in World War II were usually named after famous military leaders from their history. - **I will vote for __almost__ anything.** Getting offended at the stupidity/edginess of your opponent’s argument is not a counter-argument on its own. Rather, make actual counter-arguments and then use your emotions to be more persuasive. **That being said, remember that debate isn’t just your playground, it is also coaches’ workspace and career.** Please respect that. If you want to use a debate round to discuss the intricacies of your masturbation techniques, don’t. You aren’t funny or cool. - On tech vs. truth, **I think debate is about persuasion rather than truth-seeking.** However, “true” arguments tend to sound more persuasive. This probably has something to do with the previous bullet point. - I will vote on intrinsicness vs. a politics DA. - I usually default to competing interpretations, but sometimes, I don’t. Speaker Points**: Well-researched strategies and persuasive speaking styles (voice inflection, eye contact, etc.) will boost your points.**
 * Evidence or analytics, it needs a claim and reasons why that claim is true. **

Try to make the K seem as relevant as possible and not jargon-filled hippie crap. If you go for the K a lot, you have probably figured out that this has less to do with what K you run, and more with how you explain it. A good K debate is more interesting than a good policy debate, but a bad K debate can be seizure inducing. If you plan on winning on your K by hiding some idiotic trick in the middle of an incoherent 2NC overview, just… stop. One last thing, if you understand how framework actually functions in a round when the neg goes for a K and the aff defends the plan, you will probably win. I am willing ignore the effects of the plan and make the debate about the 1AC’s language/ontology/etc.

Has the activity really come to this?