Veizi,+Xhoel

A little about me:

I know debaters reading this care about records and the sort to decide whether judges are worth a pref, especially with me just having recently graduated. I qualified to the ToC my senior year, and finished with a 4-3 record. I debated out of a UDL school in Chicago, and the bulk of my senior year was spent reading critical args or framework (ironic). With that being said, I was all policy the 3 years prior to my senior year.

If you read a performance/critical aff, please make sure it's at least reasonably grounded to the resolution and topic. If you read affs agains the aforementioned style, I suggest not preffing me because you will find me VERY sympathetic to teams reading framework in those instances.

Note: I love all types of debate and don't have an intrinsic bias to any style (with the exception of the style I referenced above). I enjoy teams that argue framework well and also enjoy teams that argue the opposite well; I enjoy politics disads, big stick affs, and everything in between.

My paradigm...

Disads: Effective internal link debates are the name of the game. Useful for decisive impact calc and turns case args. It's more effective to leverage your internal link as a turns case arg "Gutting X program results in economic downturn and destroys X solvency," than it is to say "nuclear war turns the environment adv. because everything will be destroyed if it happens..." Getting to the second turns case scenario requires you to win the uniqueness, link, I/L, AND impact debate which at that point - the round should already be in the bag.

Politics Disad: Great. Good on you if you actually cut plan-specific link evidence that's both nuance and recent. You shouldn't rely on a spin of your generic 1nc link frontline to win the debate. The uniqueness overwhelms the link vs link determines the direction of uniqueness will usually be decided by the quality of respective cards. You're not gonna win the former if your updates for the tournament consist of a recent card that's one sentence long. On that same note, you wont win the former with a shitty card that saids *Insert Random Dem/Rep interested in something remotely similar to the plan.*

Ks: Read whatever ya want. Affs don't attack the alt enough and get pulled down the rabbit hole of stupid abstract shit. If a team is pivoting to fw especially with reps Ks to supplement for the alt, you need to avoid falling for bad K tricks and move towards utilizing your aff as the #1 point of offense, whether that be through impact turning or attempting to link turn/perm.

Performance affs/framework: A lot of the args we read my senior year fell into this. I do not have a bias for either side. Aff teams should press against framework offense by questioning the underlying values that are otherwise taken as truth in normative debate (fairness, education, etc.) Neg teams should hold the aff to a higher standard in regards to solvency, and place a special emphasis on impacting out arguments (Why is deliberative discussion on set issues of policy important? Why is your spectrum of fairness valuable?) To sum it up, the debate is going to come down to offense and as an extension - who can spin a more ideal vision of what debate ought to look like.

IMPORTANT: I'm not super familiar with this years topic, so try to avoid or at least explain any acronyms that are commonly thrown around.

Last note: I wrote this right after taking an 8 a.m. final so I'm pretty tired. My paradigm's missing a lot, but I would be more than happy to fill in any questions you might have before or after the round.