Ben+Batha

Affiliations: University of Rochester (4rd year) Former Los Alamos High School Debater (2 years) and I coach there occasionally. Rounds on the transportation topic (None -- a few practice rounds at my high school but those hardly count)

General Notes: I am in my sixth year of policy debate, and I have run nearly every every argument under the sun: from hege good econ affs to to non-topical k affs. I have broken at CEDA, am regularly in late out-rounds of regional college tournaments, and am typically in the middle of the pool at national college tournaments. I like impact turns a lot and will reward there use.

Paperless -- if both teams are paperless please include me in the jumping loop or email chain. I stop prep time when the flash drive leave the computer or you hit send on the email. I expect an order as soon as you do this.

Disads -- Please do. I'm not a huge cult of uniqueness person and think that uniqueness is generally not a question of risk but usually a fact question.I typically find that the link controls the direction of offense. That said don't ignore uniqueness.

Counter-plans -- Go for it. Process cp, condition cps, consult cps, and word pics are probably cheating but debatable. The order is generally how much I dislike them (most to least).

Kritiks -- I have run ks from most of the authors and I am familiar with most critical authors, but am most familiar with (have read primary and some secondary sources) in descending order psychoanalysis, Foucault and the Foucaultians, Marx, Nietzsche, feminism (IR & ecofeminism). I have no issue with extreme nihilism or extreme compassion. Affs please use historical counter-examples many K's debaters run are some of the most a-historical pieces of garbage I have ever seen. Protip East Asian history in particular disproves the majority of the kritiks of modernity and Eurocentricism. Learn your Ming and Qing China and Chosun Korea. Similiarly most kritiks of IR are stuck in the 70s, IR theories of the 90s and 2000s don't particularly link (like rational choice theory) if you can explain why you are not realism, etc you will go far. Bonus speaker points for good historical counter-examples and leveraging the modern IR theory that your cards likely use.

Theory/T -- I default to competing interpretations, and I will evaluate any theory you run. Though I generally will not vote on under developed theory arguments, if your a 2nc and you say, "perm is severance that's a voter" I probably wont vote on it and I will dock you speaker points.

Presumption type arguments -- I don't like them. Proposition of a plan is sufficient to flip presumption. You need offense to win on the neg.

Performance -- Run it if you wish. I would prefer you relate to the topic but I will flow it.

Framework -- these debates while dull are often necessary against all of the crazy affs out there. If there is an interpretation and a violation then it is a procedural issue and is not conditional or unconditional. I will never vote on an RVI whether theoretical or substantial. You may cross-apply framework net benefits to other positions, e.g. role-playing stuff.

Things I hate: 1) Overviews -- a) On Ks lasting more than 45 seconds (if there isn't a card). Every five seconds over that mark I doc a speaker point. b) 2AC case overviews for the K. Chances are your aff isn't that complicated, and I listened to it for 8 minutes about 15 minutes ago. I've got it. Explain it in context with the negs position or the case args. c) DA overviews that explain the whole disad. Do the impact outweighs/turns the case. Anything more is too much.

2) Being evasive in cx. Answer the question. If it is a yes or no question the first words out of your mouth should be yes, no, or we don't take a stance on that then you may explain. Conversely, the other team should give you a bit of time to explain. I am contemplating interjecting myself into cx at times when things get too evasive or rude. Don't be the first team to make me do it.

3) Backfile checks. If your strategy is gregorian calendar k, wipe out, ashtar, etc. Don't pref me or don't run them in front of me.

4) Role of the ballot arguments. They are arbitrary, vague, and self-serving. Run an alt. If you choose to eschew an alt in favor of the role of the ballot I don't give you uniqueness for your links. I need some tangible alt to vote for.