Long,+Devin

Devin Long Bloomington Jefferson High (MN) 2007-2010 University of Iowa 2010-

I debated 3 years at Jefferson in MN and currently a soph debating at Iowa.

General things

I like the easy out whether its a dropped arg or just a clear explanation in rebuttals. Doing the work in those speeches helps alot.

I evaulate the flow alot and protect 2NR/2ARs. If you don't have anything resembling an arg the last speech is making you're in trouble. Try to answer all the args even if they're stupid otherwise I always feel compelled to give dropped args a fair amount of weight.

I like spin, but I'm starting to gain a higher threshold for evidence so make sure your cards are actually good. If the other team calls you out and they suck I might disregard them as a whole.

Know how funny you are and don't cross the line between funny/mean. If you do I'll actually nuke your speaks pretty hard, but if you're hilarious then I'll probs inflate them a bit.

Args

T: I haven't done any work or seen enough debates to know the generalizations of topical affs, so I'm probably not the best judge for the neg on this. I generally lean aff on reasonability issues but can easily be persuaded otherwise if you win the framing question. Impact out limits and ground like a disad in terms of fairness and education and list examples of either topical affs or a sizable amount their interp would allow/wouldn't allow and you're golden. Affs should generally have a counter interp and debate it like a DA as well.

CPs: Most are legit. Shady Consults and Multi Actors are probably bad though. Agent/Private CPs are generally fine (private for this topic at least). Having a solvency advocate is a good thing, if they don't an aff theoretical objection is fair play and tbh a good arg in front of me. Multiplanks are also okay with me if you stick with them the whole time I think. I lean aff on severance/intrinsicness perm theory if its answered well so good answers to the perm not relying on theory should be made. Most CPs link to politics so that's always an arg the aff should make as well - negs should probably read cards on why they don't. As a logical policymaker though, I always feel I can kick the CP and go for the status quo in the 2NR in a CP/DA situation without any theoretical objections from the aff beforehand - fair warning. Some judges don't so I thought I could clarify.

DA/DA theory: I like them alot w/ CPs and case. I'm a fan of Relations DA's probs because of this year's college topic but Politics and good DA's on case make me happy as well. The aff can probably justify intrinsicness in front of me though - I will vote for that. I probably won't vote for blippy 2AC args like "vote no" or "bottom of the docket" without any explanation - that's not an arg. If that's happening the neg should spend as much time answering it as they did making it to be honest. But args like intrinsicness and no spillover are exceptions to offense/defense to me. If they win the arg it takes out the entire DA - risk of a link isn't an answer there.

Ks: I have a high threshold for these debates. A great K debate is probably my favorite kind of debate, a bad one is my least favorite. You need to explain early on what the role of the ballot/framing issue/alternative advocacy is. I buy vague alt/floating PIC theory so if it drastically shifts or you hide shit in the 1NC cross-x I will be pissed. Framework isn't a persuasive arg for the aff but I will vote on it. The best offense is alt turns, K not solve aff, and the perm coupled with specific cede the political args. If the neg can't explain their alt in a cross-x, I will also probably not vote for it even if the aff concedes a few thing here or there. I default to a USfg policy option if told not to do so and if I don't know what I'm voting for then that will happen. I know the usual K authors pretty well but if you run a metaphor or deep post-structuralist K then you'll need to slow down and explain stuff for me.

Performance: Basically the same as a K debate. I'm down with whatever if you know your arg. Keep in mind I'll still look to the flow alot so you should especially emphasize stuff I should be writing down otherwise I might not weigh a certain part of it the way you want. Framework is probably the best arg against it - I like traditional debate a bit so predictability and ground loss claims are persuasive to me.

Theory: 2 Conditional worlds is probably okay - 1 CP and one K. All of this is up for debate so if the aff's winning the line by line it doesn't really matter too much but they need to make good args as to why each conditional world is worse or why a K or CP conditional world is uniquely bad. Args like ASPEC can be dumb but affs NEED a counter interp - if not then it could be game over after the 2AC if the neg wants to go for it. Same with theory args for the neg - have a counter interpretation. Potential abuse isn't that persuasive - teams should find in round abuse to support their impact claims. Other theory args are basically the same - explain unique in round abuse, have a counter interp, and answer line by line args and impact your standards and you should be fine.

Anything else you can ask before round - I'll be open to specific args more.