Smith,+Ashton

Ashton Smith, first year undergraduate student at the University of Michigan

Background: I debated four years in High School at Maine East in Park Ridge, IL on the national circuit and I currently debate for the University of Michigan. As a debater, most of my experience has been reading "policy"-oriented arguments. My senior year of high school, I advanced to octofinals of the Tournament of Champions. I’ve spent lots of my time in high school reading "kritikal" literature, but inexperienced in its application to debate.

General notes:  -- I'm a technical, flow-oriented judge who will attempt to adjudicate the debate with as minimal intervention as possible on my part. Dropped arguments are (usually) true arguments. I appreciate tricky concessions that interact with other parts of the debate.  -- I think case-focused debates are the most interesting debates. I love impact turns and I think in-depth case analysis can substantially help negative strategies and affirmative wins against off case positions.  -- Put me in the email chain: ashtonalsmith@gmail.com

__**SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS **__ I consider myself a good judge for T. I’m not well educated on the current high school topic but I really enjoy technical, well-defended interpretations of the topic. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. For obviously arbitrary interpretation, I’m very persuaded by reasonability as an alternative to offense/defense evaluation of topicality debates. I do not immediately view any interpretation with a limits standard as the best interpretation for any topic.
 * TOPICALITY— **

Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.
 * DISADVANTAGES— **

Counterplans are good and strategic. Read them. Debate them.
 * COUNTERPLANS— **

My view of kritiks probably, most closely, resembles that of Wayne Tang, given he was my high school coach. The difference is I actually really enjoy well-articulated kritiks that directly interact with the affirmative. I enjoy kritiks most when they’re read against kritikal affirmatives. In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. If you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you. __Note:__ Kritiks I usually don’t find persuasive include security K, psychoanalysis K, and other similar arguments that often turn into generalization or broad claims about the affirmative without warrants.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">KRITIKS— **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Honestly, probably best not to pref me if this is your style. I’ve spent the majority of negative debates against K affs arguing framework. I also personally believe most of the framework arguments. Therefore, there’s a greater chance that I’ll vote for framework in these debate because I evaluate questions of topicality prior to aff solvency. Although, I will not hesitate to vote against framework arguments if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. To beat framework in front of me, I suggest clearly articulating 1) Why I should focus on the affirmative first, even though it’s not within the resolution 2) Why the negative had sufficient time to prepare against your affirmative 3) Why discussions about the impact you probably don’t solve is more important than the education we get in debate. I think counter-interpretations can be VERY strategic by kritikal affirmatives to beat framework <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Note:__ Coming from a school without tons of resources and recognizing the experiences of other relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">PLANLESS AFFIRMATIVES— **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I’ve developed a liking for theoretical arguments over the years. I’m least persuaded by “conditionality bad” if there are 3 or less conditional positions. When evaluating counterplan, I’m most persuaded by theory when there is not a solvency advocate for the counterplan. I believe that the existence of literature on a topic is important for affirmative preparation. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I also believe that Plan-inclusive Kritiks are probably bad but it’s not an immediate Affirmative ballot. I’ll evaluate both PIKs bad debates and framework on whatever happens in a specific debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">THEORY— **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Tag team in cross-ex is fine. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do not count flashing time (or general tech screw ups) as prep time <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If you make cross-ex interesting and ask really good questions, your speaker points will end up being better. Be strategic.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">OTHER STUFFS— **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, clipping cards, racist or sexist slurs etc. <span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 25px; width: 1px;"> - **I'm a technical, flow-oriented judge who will attempt to adjudicate the debate with as minimal intervention as possible on my part. Dropped arguments are (usually) true arguments. I appreciate tricky concessions that interact with other parts of the debate.** - I think case-focused debates are the most interesting debates. I love impact turns and I think in-depth case analysis can substantially help negative strategies and affirmative wins against off case positions. - Put me in the email chain: ashtonalsmith@gmail.com