Yusen,+Adam

I debated policy for Niles North in high school and currently debate and coach at the University of Illinois in parliamentary debate and several speech events. I'm fine with speed, but I will be a stickler for clarity. I'll call for evidence if its content is contested, but I otherwise don't like to read and interpret it for you. I like to see close engagement with the other team's arguments so if it seems like you are dodging clash, you will be at a disadvantage. Please feel free to ask me for any clarifications on this page before the round starts.

This is my third tournament on the topic, so you can use jargon, but please explain what it means first.

I would like to be on the email chain/Dropbox/current equivalent. My email is adamyusen@gmail.com.

-Consequentialism -Environmental/systemic impacts -Close policy analysis -Plan-specific links, disads, CPs, and Ks -Impact comparison that isn't just about magnitude
 * __Things I Like a Lot__**

__**Things I Dislike a Lot**__ -Accidental bigotry that isn't immediately corrected and apologized for -Deontological ethics -Climate denialism -Affs that aren't topical -ASPEC, OSPEC, and the ASPEC-OSPEC Double-bind -Counterplans that compete off of process -Stealing prep (prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer) -Both debaters speaking during the same speech

-Any kind of harassment or intentional bigotry -Clipping cards or manufacturing evidence
 * __Things That Will Certainly Make You Lose__**

Policy debate can come across as very conservative because few debaters are willing to challenge the probability of nuclear war impacts, so I like to see teams refocus the debate on impacts of environmental collapse or systemic violence. The best way to do this is by challenging the probability of war.
 * __Impacts__**

I default to competing interpretations, and I expect that both teams will list topical affs/neg ground that their interpretation provides. Topicality is a discussion of what debate should look like, so I want solid examples of the world you're advocating. 'We meet' can be a sufficient answer to T as long as you can prove that you meet.
 * __Topicality__**

I believe that the aff has a burden to be topical, so if you plan on eschewing the USFG or the resolution, you should probably strike me. Having participated in both policy debate and speech events, I've found that the structure and rules of speech (and there are many) do not impede the events' capacity for education or radical activism, so I find arguments that the resolution is inherently bad for discussion to be unconvincing. Furthermore, decoupling the aff from the resolution removes the only constraint guaranteeing that the plan will create //some kind// of negative ground. Because debate is a zero-sum competition and not //only// a space for advocacy, I can't justify delimiting the aff like this.

Make sure not to have any 'black box' internal link chains - for example, 'the plan helps the tech sector; tech is key to solve global warming.' There are different kinds of tech, and I want to know why the //plan's// effects matter.
 * __Case__**

The counterplan should be a disadvantage to the plan by way of its being an opportunity cost - in other words, if the neg proves that the plan precludes a //better// policy option, then I will be convinced that the plan should not be enacted.
 * __Counterplans__**

The more specific the counterplan is to the aff, the better. I also like to hear good advantage counnterplans, but again, beware of the black box internal link chain mentioned above. I lean very heavily against Consult, Conditions, and any other counterplans that solve by implementing the plan. PICing out of a substantive part of the plan (as opposed to immediacy or certainty) is a perfectly legitimate strategy that I like to see executed well.

I'm usually fine with 2 conditional counterplans or fewer, but more than that starts to get worrisome and CPs with independently conditional planks are pretty dangerous.

I will not judge-kick the counterplan for you. If you have not explicitly kicked it yourself, I will assume that the CP is still being advocated in the 2NR, which leads me to:

The aff's job is to prove that the plan should happen. In an imaginary world where there is zero risk of any advantages or disadvantages to the plan, I will default neg because the status quo has not killed us yet. If the neg advocates a counterplan instead of the status quo, this logic no longer applies because both teams are advocating change, so the aff will win in the same world of no advantages/disadvantages.
 * __Presumption__**

__Pre-fiat/representations-based Ks:__ I think these only really make sense against non-policy affs where the neg wants additional off case on top of T. As stated above, I'm a big consequentialist, so I won't be convinced that the existence of bad justifications for a good plan is a reason to reject that plan. Instead, you should argue that those bad justifications exist //because// the plan has bad outcomes. If that's the case, you should read:
 * __Kritiks__**

__Post-fiat Ks:__ These should function as a disadvantage, with some form of uniqueness. This can be a claim that the plan changes a good status quo, crosses a threshold, or simply substantially worsens the harms of the status quo. You can defend the status quo or advocate a counterplan that is ethically better, but I tend not to be convinced by alternatives where //I// am the actor as opposed to the //government.// I would be impressed by a strong discussion of how a philosophical alternative plays a key role //in// the counterplan.

__Discourse Ks:__ Please feel free to call out racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted behavior by the other team. Factors like immediate recognition of their error and apology can mitigate the problem, but if they double down on it, go to town. You don't need an alternative here because this is almost more of a theory argument than a standard K in my view, so proving that the other team sets a terrible standard for how debate function will win you my ballot.

Again, case-specific links are preferred. I was a Politics hack myself, but I do realize that there are some weekends when Politics is just not a good disad. I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of the disad, but be warned that it doing so will likely require that the negative fully drops a section of the argument.
 * __Disadvantages__**