Cai,+Kent

Kent Cai Edgemont 2016 NYU Stern 2020 - Finance and Data Science

Edited July 2017

__**Conflicts**__ Edgemont High School


 * __Major Influences__**

Matt Malia Michael Antonucci


 * __General__**

I see debate as an **//educational game//**. You can do whatever you want to as long as you don’t/aren’t - Offensive - Exceed speech time - Misrepresent/clip cards

To me, being a judge is simply being a listener of your arguments.

//**Anything can be debated**//, there is no "moral bottom line" so to speak, where certain arguments cannot be made (death good, cap good, racism good). If you win the argument you win, I won't intervene and drop you on some non-existent moral bottom line.

I don’t necessarily abide by truth > tech or tech > truth. I follow the flow, but **//truth makes the flow more compelling//**.


 * //I have no ideological investment in the content of debates//**. I genuinely think 99% debate arguments are ridiculous, and with all due respect, many of the authors who may seem credible are idiots. Please please please think about your arguments in a more real world context outside of the debate jargons.

I think argument flexibility is good and important. At least attempt to be ideologically flexible, as in be accepting of other arguments, if you don’t have the technical abilities to be argumentatively flexible.

An ideal debate involves good communication, creativity, and clash. **//The only possible role of the ballot is to determine who did the better debating//**.

The aff should at least have something to do with the topic and defend some form of departure from status quo. There should be an advocacy that the aff can be held to and the advocacy should be supported by academically sound evidences. (If you read 10 darkmatter cards and call that a 1AC I won't like it very much)

TKOs are in play, quoting Brian Manuel's judge philosophy:

"T.K.O (Technical Knockout) basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?"

I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates. I’ve never gone for T or even extended it in the block, but I’ve answered it very often.

- Cross ex wins debates. It’s also the only time I know for sure you aren’t reading blocks. - I don’t like theory debates, but theory arguments can be strategic. - 2 conditional advocacies is totally fine, 3 requires the neg to do some work justifying it. - Overviews are useful but only do so if arguments cannot be answered on the flow.
 * __Biases__**

People care too much about this, but anyways...
 * __K Affs vs Framework__**

I've been on both sides of the debate, but much more often reading a K aff answering framework than vice versa. However, this isn't because I lean aff in these debates but rather I personally find other arguments more strategic against specific K affs. I'm actually a big fan of well-run framework arguments.

Given my lack of ideological investment in the content of debates, I’m honestly 50-50 in framework debates. I think K/performance affs are definitely valuable but can sometimes get a little ridiculous.

Affs should defend some sort of an advocacy that they can be held to, unless they have a good reason as to why they shouldn't be held to an advocacy. If you read two poems and talk about yourself and say "vote me" that won't go well.

In framework debates, the aff should actually answer the nuance of framework arguments instead of only reading the Delgado card and yelling “fairness for whom??”


 * //"Debate as a space for change" arguments are just not persuasive. If you've been trained by your coaches to think this is true, I'd like to be introduced to them and laugh at them.//**

Again, I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates. I’ve never gone for T or even extended it in the block, but I’ve answered it very often.
 * __T__**

- Impact framing determines most of these debates. - I will vote on zero risk of case/DA/whatever if framed as such.
 * __DA/Case Debate__**

This is pretty bread and butter, nothing much else to be said about here.

I don't research the topic so please make it clear to me what exactly the counterplan does and how it differs from the aff. PICs are totally fine, aff winning theory arguments generally at most means rejecting the argument instead of rejecting the team. Competition is the most important thing.
 * __CP__**

- //**Link magnitude is super important**// - if you only go for a Crenshaw silence link and don't explain how that specifically leads to your Wildersonian ontological impacts, I won't give you that impact. - Sometimes you don't need to win an alternative. - I don't like root cause arguments because they are too shallow and too much of a broad sweeping claim to be academically credible. - I don’t like anthro. - I don’t think Wilderson's view of the world is correct despite going for Wilderson 50+ times.
 * __K__**