Asilis,+Julian

 Julian Asilis

Gulliver Prep ‘16

Quick Notes: - I was a 2a in high school - Framing the Debate is Key – I’d rather decide a debate on the merits of one team’s narrative rather than minor differences in evidence quality - Please be clear - will yell and be displeased if can't understand - Go slow on long-winded tag-lines - I tend to give the 1AR some leeway, but don’t think it’s a good idea to abuse that - tech > truth, which doesn't mean teams on the 'right side of the debate' shouldn't still have an easier time winning - I know literally nothing about the topic

Include me on the email chain (asilisjulian@gmail.com)

Topicality: made difficult without well-developed impacts that are made to compellingly interact with one another. I like being told what the world of debate looks like under different interpretations and why the kinds of debates that take place in those worlds are good/bad. Arguments about evidence quality can be persuasive when there is a noticeable distinction between interpretations' sources.

Neg – please don’t hedge your bets on a nebulous violation. Make sure to have clear impacts to your interpretation. Make sure there is a clear violation, I tend to err aff on reasonability arguments. Effects/extra T arguments are cool when debated with depth.

Aff – please do not be blippy on T in the 2AC – Ex: “our aff is reasonable” = not an argument - and I will sympathize with negative teams that miss arguments.

Theory: Like topicality, theory must be well developed and impacted for me to be persuaded by it. That being said, some violations are more egregious than others – 2 conditional worlds is probably usually fine and process/consult/conditions CPs are probably bad – but there are reasonable arguments from either side depending on context.

Case: well-thought out case turn debates are dope. I’m also a huge fan of impact defense. 2AC/1AR should be brief yet clear/warranted on the case debate – use your 1AC.

Counterplans: Most generic counterplans are fine. Very specific counterplans are cool, but most CP debates end up being hyper generic – consult,condition, etc. are pretty susceptible to the perm do the cp + theory strat when done well. Process CPs related to the topic are noticeably more persuasive.

Disadvantages: Impact framing is pretty important. Aff – always make sure to read impact defense and fault logical flaws with the Disad. Most Politics scenarios/topic disads tend to be pretty dumb. Neg – I love a good turns the case/access your impact scenario. If it’s politics make sure you have good link evidence, and a legit impact scenario.

Kritiks: While I debated I wasn’t the biggest fan of the kritik, but have experience with most major arguments. I have a grasp on most IR-based/generic Ks, but winning with high theory or identity arguments is going to require some extra explation.

For the aff – framework is very important – you’re going to lose if your framework is “no critique” – please define the focus of the debate and role of the ballot/judge. Have cards which substantiate the studies/methods used in the crafting of your aff, always make a perm and make sure it has clear net benefits. Answer each separate K-link/trick.

For the Neg – For high theory/race teams remember a lot of explanation throughout the debate – I want to be able to understand your arguments. Legit: Make sure to have a clearly articulated framework. I love link debates so make sure you 1. Contextualize the link to the affirmative, 2. Use it as leverage against framework and the perm 3. Use the link as defense against the affirmative. Explain clearly how the alternative functions –I don’t like to hear a “and once we stop using security logic against your aff it all goes away”.

K Affs: In high school I was big on framework, but I’ve leveled out a bit in my perspective on this issue since leaving the activity. My belief in tech over truth takes priority over personal inclinations about how debates should take place, but I seriously doubt that they have no effect on how I think about the round.   Neg – make sure to have a clear and impacted scenario on framework. Have a role of the judge and the ballot. Be careful in considering why there is a topical version of the plan, or why they can access their knowledge through topical ways. 'You can do it on the Neg' is probably not good enough.   Aff –If you’re against a counter-narrative-strategy please utilize the perm. Always have a good defense of your rhetoric – I find K affs susceptible to PICs. Be very clear about what your role of the ballot is and how I should evaluate the debate. These affs should be related to the topic – I’m not gonna be down to have a talk about our experience in the debate space kind of round. Please go beyond generic arguments about the United States federal government being bad – give me specifics about the things that they have done which are similar to what you’re critiquing.