Bahls,+Alex

Debated 4 years at Wazyata on the national circuit. Went to TOC and all that jazz.

I debated mostly CP/DA/impact turns in high school, but you can run whatever floats your boat in front of me, I am open to pretty much anything. I will try to be tabula rasa. The Glenbrooks will be my first tournament judging on this topic, but I have decent familiarity with it

2013 Update: I now debate for UChicago (you should ask me about joining our team!) and now typically read more non-traditional arguments such as Baudrillard (disclaimer: this does not mean I understand Baudrillard well). College debate combined with school has made me feel more comfortable evaluating/understanding critical literature, but it is still something I do not have a lot of experience adjudicating.


 * __Specific argument jazz__**

__Topicality__- Limits is the most important/persuasive standard for me, so frame your arguments in terms of case lists and limits. Standards like ground seem to beg the question of what the topic is. As a consequence of this, I prefer competing interps, but can be persuaded otherwise. Tech assistance may or may not be T.

__Disadvantages__- Politics is probably not an opportunity cost to the plan but no one ever debate this well so I will probably vote on politics a lot. The more specific the story the more likely you are to win. Compare impacts.

__Impact turning__- I make this separate because I did it a lot in high school. I am open to hearing any impact turn debate, to quote from Calum Matheson- “ If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win”. //This does not mean impact turn everything in front of me. // Just be aware that if impact turning is your style or it is strategic, I will be open to it.

__Counterplans__- I was a 2n so am pretty lenient with what I think the neg should be able to run. There is also value to theory against certain plans, but I will be much more sympathetic to your theory argument if you at least try to answer the counterplan substantively as well (impact turn net benefit, terminal defense, add on, etc.) On a related note, I think that “there is always a risk” is stupid. If the risk for something being good is very small, there is probably an equally good chance of it being bad. This means that the .001% chance of a net benefit isn’t really an argument for me. It is possible to beat a stupid, artificial net benefit on smart defensive arguments, even if you don’t have cards.

__Other theory__- 2 conditional advocacies is probably fine, but I’m open to voting on conditionality if it is argued well. For most everything but conditionality, I will reject the argument not the team. I won’t listen to blippy theory arguments without warrants where it is not clear to anyone whether or not it was said.

__Kritiks__- I have less, but some background with these. I don’t have a strong bias aff or neg, but just be aware that I am not as comfortable evaluating these debates and that you may be surprised by my decision. Don’t rely too much on jargon, explain clearly what you mean IN RELATION TO THE CASE, and I will be much more likely to vote for you

__Performance/Non-traditional Affs__- Go for it, I’ll vote on it if I think you won the argument

__Speaker points-__ be nice, be funny, make smart strategic decisions. I will be very impressed with strategic cross applications, impact turning, and people that are strategically able to make the parts of the debate they don’t want to talk about go away.

Ask me any other questions you have before the debate. Or ask Eric Short, who knows me better than I know myself Much love, Bahls