Chien,+Gene

Name: Gene Chien Years in Activity: Since 1998 - 2002, 4 years high school debate, no college debate, 5 years of coaching high school debate.

I'll accept any argument defined as an explained claim and warrant. Whatever your thing is - do your best and I promise I'll do mine. couple general opinions:

When a Neg can thrash an Aff on case - thats impressive. (*note for the Aff* never let this happen - when a 1NC goes 5 minutes of case you should WANT that debate BADLY)


 * __Topicality -__ ** well evidenced/strategic t violations are definitely viable in front of me. Evidence that frames the aff plan in relation to the T interp and violation is helpful. caselists are helpful. caselists and analysis about the division of predictable ground that it allows for is helpful. examples of how the aff's messed up plan text had a tangible impact on the neg strat in this particular debate is helpful.

__**Disads-**__ (taken directly from Calum Matheson's judge wiki) "Uniqueness cannot determine the direction of a link. This is not an opinion, just a statement of fact. Some outcome is more or less likely to happen in the future, but because it’s a prediction, the probability is almost never 100%. The link is a net assessment of how the plan changes this—it’s a yes/no, up/down thing. So if one team wins the direction of the link, they should win the argument (although winning the sign of the change doesn’t mean that its magnitude is necessarily enough to result in a particular outcome). Here’s an example: the Aff has three advantages. The Neg has a counterplan that definitely solves two of them, and definitely does not solve the third. The Neg only has inherency arguments on that advantage, which is the only net benefit to the counterplan. Does the Neg win? No. They have no offense so the counterplan can’t possibly be better than the Aff alone. This situation is identical to the case when a counterplan solves all of the case, the Neg wins uniqueness to the net benefit, but the Aff wins (non-unique) link turns."

**__Counterplans__** - smart, well researched cps w. solvency advocates - love'em. Consult/ Delay/ Condition cp's...meh...no problem with them, but the slew of theoretically justifiable permutations goes up exponentially. I think its great when a team uses theory to justify other round winning arguments instead of a straight reject the position type of impact. Use theory to generate a framework for reciprocal debate.


 * __the K__ **- Good K debates are awesome, Bad K debates belong in LD *zing* jk- Seriously though reading a K doesn't mean you get to gloss over specific reasons why the Aff doesn't solve their case. If your K doesn't turn the Aff's solvency, disprove the thesis of its advantages, or prove a relationship between the aff advocacy and bad stuff - I have no idea why I should prefer your position. R eally focusing on the specificity of your K alt will go a long way for me - and i don't mean "total rejection of blah" isn't an alternative, but if there is an analytically deep reason to prefer inaction or rejection please tell me. Fiat being illusory doesn't auto-slay the aff's advocacy - your alt has to be preferable to the Aff advocacy, which should be easy if you're winning the link and impact debate of your K.

__**Performance Affs:**__ sure why not. The farther out there you get the more unfamiliar I will be - but I'll keep an open mind and do my best to keep up. I have voted in favor or performance affs and I have voted for neg teams that have "framework"ed these affs out of the debate.

Couple Suggestions, that would help me help you.

- I've noticed ppl don't really signpost overviews anymore - speaking for 2 minutes at the top of a position before referencing the other team's first arg makes it less clear to me what you might specifically be responding to. I think its up to you to tell me how arguments are interrelated or how they apply to one another.

- If I have to call for cards, more often less is more - I’d prefer you make a stand on 1 piece of fantastic evidence as opposed to 6 under highlighted cards. Under highlighting is __UNIQUELY BAD__ because it draws attention away from warrants and condones poor research practices. It also makes evidence comparison impossible after the round. If you don't like good evidence there is always PoFo or Parli *double zing*jk If you feel their evidence is really bad on a particular point - call it out - tell me why - and it will definitely pay off for you.

- If the K is your thing please go light on the specific literary terms that require the context of the original work to understand them. Take those concepts and actively apply them in round. Specificity and instrumental application makes everything easier to understand.

I’m totally down to answer any additional questions you have before or after the round. I’m a deep believer in the educational aspects of this event, and I honestly want you to get the most out of each competition. Debate should be educational and fun, enjoy yourselves. That being said I'll leave you with this youtube clip I'm sure some of you will enjoy []

Good luck.