Anderson,+Devin

** TLDR ** I've been debating on the National Circuit for 3 years for Nevada Union High School. This season I've qualled to the TOC and gotten to 5 bid rounds . I have heard/understand most, if not all arguments on this topic. I am mostly versed in K argumentation and can give great feedback for those debates, but that's not to say I'll hate a DA/CP debate or evaluate it differently. I will be as objective as possible in all regards unless there's something unresolved by the rebuttals. I will inevitably have verbal queues which you should use to your advantage, but also don't worry, it doesn't mean anything other than my reaction to an argument. Tech > Truth unless you make a racist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc. argument and they drop it. Inclusive community comes first Add me to the email chain: devindebate@gmail.com

** T/Theory ** Topicality & theory were a lot of my 1NRs when I was a freshman and sophomore and I enjoy the technical element of them that attempts to pick out abusive portions of the aff. Most affs are objectively not topical, and pointing that out with a good interpretation that is tied to substantive offense is a great way to win my ballot in these debates. Some of my favorite debates consisted of making 20 second procedurals pointing out obviously abusive plan texts etc. and it becoming the Block/2NR

** CP ** The more specific the better. Watching someone go 8 off with 4 counterplans that have generic or no evidence just to collapse to the states counterplan makes me cringe. Specific solvency cards are extremely important to me because specificity should determine the validity of your argument in these debates. "Our card says all federal action is bad" is not a sufficient reason why I'm going to prefer the states counterplan over their specific aff evidence that says, in their case, federal action is good. This is where I'm most biased argumentation wise, but I strongly believe fiat only means you get to implement the counterplan to simulate its effects. This does not mean that your counterplan is the actual deathstar and is immune to all their deficits because "fiat solves". You should instead debate the warrants of their evidence and prove that the counterplan is sufficient to resolve the impacts of the aff. Debate isn't Hogwarts; stop relying on your 'magic wand'

** DA ** Again, the more specific the better. Though it's totally justified, I will probably still roll my eyes if you say "We'll read more link evidence in the block". It makes it seem like you want to undermine 2AC offense or get through more arguments by sacrificing specificity. I'll always look to framing first in these debates. I think arguments about obscuring structural violence through preaching extinction are strategic and are not answered sufficiently by just saying "But death!". The link debate is really important to me, and unless it's just totally ignored, I will probably look here second when evaluating these debates

** FW ** I've debated against this argument all my debate career, but I think that helps me understand it better because I've heard so many teams read it different ways. Mostly, you do you in these debates, BUT I think that arguments like "fairness" and "limits" are internal links unless proven otherwise in the debate. I will give less credence to arguments about limits & fairness if the aff is winning that the system we're preserving because it's "fair", is bad. But, if you have an external impact to fairness then I'm much more likely to vote for you. I will evaluate this debate almost entirely on the impact level, and how that implicates both teams interpretations of debate

** Kritiks ** I love good kritik debates. This is italicized because I believe debates on these arguments are unbearable when done improperly and becomes a screaming match of overviews. For these arguments to be productive & effective, you need at least one specific link to the aff that is tied to a concrete impact. I will default to letting the aff weigh their impacts, but can be persuaded to believe that it is disingenuous. Chances are, I know your argument or a variation of it, but as every paradigm on here says, don't assume I know your argument. That doesn't mean I can't learn quickly, but it will require superior explanatory power on your part. A very small percentage of baudrillard debates are decided solely because judges hate the argument, but rather because the debaters can't articulate a coherent story for them to vote on. I will most likely look to the framework debate first, and then follow wherever the rebuttals put me Note: If I can't explain to the other team why they lost, I probably won't vote for your argument

** K Affs ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">These debates are valuable to me, and I will evaluate this debate as objectively as any other, whether it's structural, performative, or theory based. Topic ties are ideal, because I really won't enjoy hearing Alice in Wonderland V6. I think these debates will be much easier for you if you're winning some central offense about their interpretation, while combining it with terminal defense that makes me even question why their interpretation matters at all. Microptx is always a route I've taken, which has been largely successful. The best k aff debates I've had all ended up with the 2NR being forced to take an unsavory position that the 2AR capitalizes on to prove offense or links to their interpretation. I could write a lot in this section, but to keep it simple ^ prove your model is good and that your advocacy is beneficial, and you should be good

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** Speaker Points ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will reward smart cross-x questions, strategic pivots, and most certainly unpredictable 2NR/2AR decisions. If 5 seconds into your speech I'm already psyched about the speech I'm about to hear, major boost for you. I think speaker points are arbitrary and thus should give me the ability to help you get to where you want to be in a tournament, but it's your job to prove to me why you deserve it. Don't be rude, and I will a rewarding judge for you