Krakoff,+Joe

Joe Krakoff Michigan 2015 GDS 2011 Affiliations: GDS, University Prep


 * "There are some who believe that there is a 'correct' way to debate just as there are some who believe that there is only one true religion. I am respectful of all of those who so believe but I do not think students should have those values imposed upon them." -- Jim Gentile**

Every debate is a debate about what debate should be about. I'm open to all interpretations of what that statement means.

Absent resolution--

Framework and T are very different. Topicality is a much better argument, all things being equal: why is it good to debate about implementation by the government of specific plans? What type of educational benefit is neglected by the aff?

Cross-ex is often very important for my decision.

T and theory need impact calculus. No strong feelings about either other than this.

The role of the neg is to negate the aff. Discursive kritiks do this. Alternatives can be strategic but are not necessary. Still, I'm unlikely to completely disregard one side's entire story about, like, how reality works.

Ideally, counterplans solvency advocates should matter, but if the 1AC is thrown together nonsense, that's much less important.

Impact uniqueness is where I usually begin making my decision. When I think no one "solves" anything, I will probably vote neg absent the aff reframing presumption.

The words "ethics challenge" stop the debate.

I don’t really care about paperless dead time, but don't abuse this.