Ghekas,+Alex

About me: I debated for Blue Valley Southwest High School for three years and graduated in 2015. I debated on the local Kansas circuit as well as the TOC circuit.

General Notes: I enjoy a fast, clear, and technical debate. I think that tech comes before truth. That means a conceded argument that has a claim and warrant and goes unanswered is going to be considered true as long as it is extended properly. I will flow to the best of my ability, but I will only flow what I can understand. It is your job to be clear enough for me to hear your arguments. I will say clear once in a speech, and I will keep trying to flow, but at the end of the debate I will only evaluate the arguments I have on my flow (this is especially important for T and theory).

Specific Notes:

Disads: I love disads. I went for the politics disad in 85% of my 2nrs in high school. This is the negative argument that I am the most comfortable with, but that doesn’t mean you can get away with being lazy. Impact calc is key to win a DA and case debate. I generally default to the impact that kills the most people the fastest, but I will use any paradigm I am given to determine which impact is greater. I think disads will largely come down to the link debate, so be really clear in your explanation and spin. Indicting the other team’s evidence and making comparisons will result in better speaker points and high chance of winning. Politics theory – I am unlikely to vote on fiat solves the link, bottom of the docket or these types of args if they are answered.

Counterplans: I think counterplans that are tricky, original, and case specific are the best and most strategic CPs. I think CPs that have a solvency advocate and are explicitly distinct are legitimate and compete. I don’t think consult or delay counterplans are competitive but if you out tech the aff and they don’t have good theoretical reasons to reject the argument/good arguments for perm do CP I will vote on those CPs. I won’t kick a CP or any negative advocacy that is in the 2nr unless the 2nr explicitly says I can kick it for them and the aff hasn’t made a prior argument that they shouldn’t be able to do that. Don’t hesitate to read generic CPs as well.

Kritiks: I am not very well versed in critical literature. In high school, I read cap and neolib but rarely went for it in the 2nr. That means that for me you need to explain the argument without buzz words. I am much more likely to vote for the K if the negative team does a good job of explaining what the alt does and how it solves the impacts to the K. I will also need a good framework to evaluate impacts. I tend to think that extinction outweighs everything, but I can be persuaded if the negative makes smart arguments. I think negative framework arguments that don’t allow the aff to be weighed at all are illegitimate, and I think aff framework arguments that preclude the K from being read are outdated. If you go for the K exclusively just keep in mind that I’m more likely to understand and know how to weigh arguments like neolib, and security than other complex Ks.

Topicality: Generally I think that T debates come down to which interpretation would create the best topic to debate. I can be swayed to vote on reasonability when coupled with good arguments about why the negative interp overlimits ect. I find precision and limits standards to be compelling, so I think that both teams should have good arguments or evidence about why their interp is the most predictable/precise and how it would create the most educational topic. T is never a reverse voting issue.

Theory: As mentioned earlier in my paradigm, slow down on theory shells if you want me to get all of the arguments. I think theory is generally a reason to reject the argument not the team except for conditionality. I think it is useful to have an interp to help generate offense and solve the opposition’s offense. If theory becomes a large part of the debate please make sure to generate some clash and don’t just read blocks back and forth.

Non-topical affs: I think that affs should have to defend a hypothetical government action that does something related to the topic. If you like to read affs that don’t defend a plan implemented by the federal government, you won’t lose automatically, but I do find negative framework/T arguments very compelling. That being said, feel free to read critical advantages and tell me how to weigh them. I am also open to any style of evidence including music, poetry ect but I think you still need to defend a plan.

Case Debate: I think it is crucial to have a good, thought out strategy to answer the affirmative. Specific strategies will yield higher speaker points. I am also a big fan of impact turns.

Cheating: Don’t clip cards, steal prep, or try to make it hard for the other team to access/read your evidence. These things can hurt speaker points and/or result in a loss. Prep time ends when you say it does, and you can flash off time within reason (don’t abuse it).

If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to ask before the round or by email. My email is alex.ghekas@gmail.com.