Park,+Simon

Email: simonpark101@gmail.com Centennial (MD) Class of 2016 Conflicts: Centennial, McDonogh, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir, National Cathedral, Every high school Daniel Hirsch debated for etc.
 * Simon Park **

- I never loved judges that had paradigms that said anything along the lines of "if you read <<>> I won't vote for you." Judge adaptation is important, but it should never be to the degree where you take a whole 180 degree turn. Do what you're good at and comfortable with. - Don’t clip/cross-read/cheat in any way - Everything I say below can be persuaded the other way - Tech > Truth - Presumption goes towards less change - Debate is a communication activity. If you aren't communicating with me in your speeches, you're not doing your job. In other words, be clear and confident. Gabe Koo said it best "...If I hear you muttering how awful your 2AR is right as it ends, why do you think I would want to vote for you? If you don't think you won, why should I convince myself you won?" Even if your argument is a flat out lie, if you sound badass/persuasive/intelligent in your speeches/CX going for those arguments, it makes me want to give you good speaks at the very least. - You don't need impact defense to beat a disad/advantage if you explain how the internal link(s) = illogical (but who actually does this more often that not anyways?) - Framing is important – the line by line is obviously important too but I like it even more when there’s a meta level framing argument that changes the way I should view the arguments in the line by line - Been both a 2A and 2N so no huge bias on each other side
 * Top-Level **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">My view of Framework could not be summed up better than what Gabe Koo said in his judge philosophy – see below, slightly edited
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Framework **

//<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Aff // <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- I read an Aff with no plan my junior year. I think there is high value in these Affs, just ask my coach DB. Where I see people going wrong when answering framework is just repeating the same old "fairness for whom" with no explanation. That is a good first line of offense but there are more arguments than that. I think the smartest way to answer framework excluding your turns is 1. clown the internal links 2. generate external offense 3. consider the uniqueness and the relevance of their scenarios too. If you do this successfully their impacts are low, and now your impact turns have much more weight. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- The best no-plan affs in my opinion are ones that are built to beat "do it on the neg" and "topical version of the aff" arguments. If your aff isn't that, I don't know why you're reading it vs. a team you know that is going for Framework.

//<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Neg // <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- There are two routes. 1. Liberal 2. Hard-core Right. I personally think the hard core right is better because if you go the Liberal route, the Aff is able to either include themselves in your interpretation and your internal link thresholds are a lot weaker, or the Aff can solve for your terminal impacts a lot easier. I think the most persuasive way to go for Framework is to go for limits/clash as an internal link to fairness and advocacy skills/decision making. Make a bunch of turns case/solves case arguments as well. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- I do think the Liberal version of Framework can be persuasive when there is a good link argument to the aff that proves a trade-off. However, given the way people read no-plan affs now-a-days, that is hard to win. When the Liberal version of Framework is executed correctly, it is devastating. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Please make the case debate relevant and jive with your Framework argument.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- the 2NR has to explicitly say the judge has to kick the CP <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Solvency advocates are necessary <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Slow down on the CP text <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Acronyms should be explained <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Advantage CPs are awesome. It really exposes how bad teams are at defending their internal links <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Well-researched process-based CPs/PICs are my favorite
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Counterplans **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Conditions CPs/Word PICs/Process CPs/Object Fiat/Contradictions Bad – Aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Topical CPs/Unconditionality/Intrinsic & Severance Perms – Neg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- International Fiat/50 State Fiat/Agent CPs/Conditionality/Floating PIKs – Middle
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Theory and where I lean **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Smart analytical turns case arguments are underrated <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Zero risk is more than possible for me <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Politics is awesome <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Smart, well-researched specific disads = better <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- I don’t have much to say here other than jargon like “uniqueness controls the direction of the link” or vice versa is meaningless
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Disads/Impact Turns **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Mostly aff leaning on reasonability vs. competing interpretation questions but can be persuaded otherwise <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Generic fairness/education impact calc is boring. That should all be contextualized to the aff/what the aff justifies <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-family: Garamond,serif;">- I give the 1AR leeway when T is extended for like <span class="aQJ" style="font-family: Garamond,serif;">1:30 <span style="font-family: Garamond,serif;"> or 2 minutes in the block. Because if it is only <span class="aQJ" style="font-family: Garamond,serif;">1:30 <span style="font-family: Garamond,serif;"> ~ <span class="aQJ" style="font-family: Garamond,serif;">2:00 <span style="font-family: Garamond,serif;"> of the block, it was probably super blippy and in most cases, awful
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Topicality **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Link/impact contextualization to the aff’s plan mechanism/internal link triumphs contextualization to the aff saying "USfg" in the plan/the impact card the aff reads <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- I really don't have a huge problem with high theory stuff as many other judges do. However, I will say you are put at a higher threshold to explain your stuff, not because these arguments are ALL “bad” per say, but my knowledge on this stuff will be low <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Role of the ballot/judge arguments getting thrown around a lot but never being implicated is my biggest pet peeve. Given that, I think it is kinda ridiculous how some K debates go down vs. policy affs. Obviously debate isn't ONLY be about the plan vs. squo/competitive policy option and obviously debate isn't ONLY about whether the aff's reps/epistemology/ontology/other are ok. If the 1AR drops a K bomb, that's a different story but there needs to be some sort of middle ground established. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- In addition to what is said above, I find "reps don't shape reality" type arguments super unpersuasive. These arguments are usually only won by the aff when the neg totally forgets to answer it. There are a lot of really good hardcore right-leaning teams that only lose to the K because they don't engage the substance of the K i.e. "our reps are key to solve X Y Z," which I find a ton more persuasive. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- 2ACs impact turning the K is an underrated strategy. I don't know why people don't go for imperialism/capitalism/biopolitics good as much as people used to. If you’re going to defend the hard right, might as well stick to it.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">The K **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Most of “The K” section stuff apply here too <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Should the aff get a perm? After thinking and long and hard about this, I am super 50:50 about it because being Neg against K affs that are a walking permutation is very frustrating. However, on the flip side, is the aff getting the permutation a better way to facilitate clash and opportunity cost education? It is up in the air and being technical on this part of the debate is crucial for both sides.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Left on Left **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Badass strategies: 1AR kicking the aff and impact turning a disad, whole constructive on impact turn(s), no prep speeches (your speech gotta be good because if it’s not, you epically failed) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Ethos. You’re not a total jerk but have swagger while being sassy. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Good execution of arguments/shifting/framing <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Clarity <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">- Efficiency/Organization
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Ways to get good speaks in front of me (in no particular order) **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-family: Garamond,serif;">- “ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Garamond,serif;">This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge? <span style="font-family: Garamond,serif;">” – Brian Manuel
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Garamond,serif; font-size: 12.8px;">The TKO **