Oleynik,+Daniel

Daniel Oleynik

Experience: I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School (2011-2015), and I’m an incoming freshman into Michigan State University.

__TL;DR -__ Got 15 minutes before the round? Don't have time to read everything? Read this instead. But if you have time, I suggest you do.
 * I'm fully tech over truth, don't drop or concede arguments.
 * I'll accept all arguments, as long as they're not stupid nor offensive
 * I am a self-admitted K-hack, but I will listen to policy, I just don't always enjoy it.
 * Make me laugh.

__Pre-round__
 * I’m a fan of all arguments and there’s nothing I won’t vote on. On that note, I’m a large fan on Ks and non-traditional arguments, though I don’t mind a good T debate every now and then.
 * I see too many teams doing tagline extensions of cards and think that means they extended the warrants as well, if you want to make a good argument, don’t just extend the card, but make some warranted analysis as well.
 * Use Cross-Ex well, but there’s a brightline between a sassy C/X and a rude one.
 * Analytics are pretty under-used as arguments, a good analytic can beat evidence a good amount of time
 * I don’t take prep for flashing
 * Tag-teaming is fine, just don’t let it get abusive or excessive.
 * Having debated for Groves, both JL and Ryan influenced me in the opinion of tech vs. truth. I usually prefer tech debates, and will vote on that, but I can be persuaded truth debates are better (though that takes techiness as well…) And if an argument is dropped or conceded, that argument gains full weight unless the team can give me a valid reason why not
 * I’m a very clear judge, in the idea that, when speeches will be going, I’ll be making facial expressions and looks. If you see me making a confused look, either move on or provide more explanation for me to get it. If you see me making a pleased face, keep going

__Clipping Cards__ Clipping cards is cheating, and any recorded act of it happening will be met with an L and reduced speaker points.

__Bad Arguments__ I’m not a fan of bad arguments, but at the same time, if a team loses it on because they failed to flow it, and doesn’t answer it throughout the whole speech, that’s on them more than me. To answer bad arguments, just say something along the lines of “this is silly” and move on.

Bad arguments include, but are not limited to: Time Cube CP/K, FIAT solves the link, Plan is bottom of the docket, any of the specification arguments that aren’t ASPEC.

Regarding the top, there are some arguments I will not vote on regardless of concessions or not: Racism/Sexism/Discrimination Good, Torture Good, and RVIs.

__Being AFF__ Make sure both the 2AC and the 1AR do effective line by line and don’t concede a negative argument. Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong. I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR. If you can give me a reason why I should, I’ll look at it, otherwise, make sure 1AR does everything they need to.

__Framework__ As a former K debater, I’m not a fan of framework debates and I won’t be happy, but I’ll evaluate them the same as any other argument. As long as you win the flow, I see no reason you don’t win the debate. Fairness and Educations are good, but they’re not specific reasons to vote one side or the other. You’ve got to impact both of them, and give me reasons why your fairness/education is better than the other teams, whether it be decision making, portable skills, etc.

__Kritiks__ Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there. In terms of authors, Really Familiar (these are arguments that I can not only follow jargon wise, but I’ll understand a lot of the arguments really well) Deleuze and Guattari, Zizek, Fanon, Lacan, Saldahna, Butler (grievability ethics), Marx, Anthro Familiar (these are arguments I’m familiar with, but I’m not exactly perfect on, may need a little more explanation) Wilderson, Agamben, Foucault, Puar, Heidegger, Butler (feminism) Familiar-ish (these are arguments that I’m only slightly knowledgeable in, good amount of explanation will be needed) Baudrillard, Negri, Nietzsche, Wendy Brown, Derrida, Antonio, Camus Who? (these are arguments where I’ve heard of the person, or have a slight idea of their arguments, otherwise, a lot of explanation needed.) Mignolo, Deloria, Hardt, (others I haven’t heard of…) Quick side note: If you have an author, and you’re thinking I’ve never heard of ‘em, at least ask me before the round, I may have forgotten somebody.

Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks. These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.

Notes for Aff Read a perm Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff. The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg. No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you. Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.

__Disads__ I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them. On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see. Be the third debater.
 * 1) They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis
 * 2) They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work.
 * 3) They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.

While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them. Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.

__CPs__ Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them. Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.

If the counterplan, not including advantage, that relies on a possibility of resulting in the Aff instead of a 100% risk, I’ll evaluate with caution, and this will usually be my last-choice argument. Make sure there’s at least one argument that makes the case that the CP will result in the Aff.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive, especially if the Neg has more than 3 conditional advocacies.

I’m fine with PICs, but make sure you’re ready for theory arguments if they come up.

__Topicality__ Ironically enough, even as a K debater, I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch. If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these. If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.

SPECIFIC TO NON-PLAN AFFS - If debating topicality, or on that note framework, the negative should make sure to make a topical version of the plan. Affirmative should give at least one reason why the topical version doesn’t solve.

__Non-Traditional Affs__ I’m a fan of watching non-traditional arguments, especially with debate flooded with policy aff after policy aff. Same with the Kritik, make sure to explain how your plan functions and any jargon that might be involved. If I, as the judge, can’t understand how the plan solves the impacts or how the solvency mechanism operates because of a lack of bad explanation, I will default Neg to presumption. However, I have a high threshold for what constitutes a “bad explantion” Aff - Read a role of the ballot, if the neg concedes it, you know have a much better chance of winning this debate.

__Speaker Points__ Humor is good, the more you can brighten up a judge’s mood, the better. A lot of it will rely on good ethos moments and how you do on the flow. If you can keep up and not drop/concede key arguments, it’ll go better for you. Don’t be offensive/rude, this shouldn’t have to be said… I know that speaks matter, so if you want to know, ask me after the round individually and I’ll happily tell you what you got. It’s not that big of a deal to me. Seem knowledgeable about the literature base that you’re reading and about the aff.

Specific things to up speaks

Related to humor: make me laugh Bad puns, bad jokes, making fun of someone you think I know, all will probably make me laugh. If you do something risky and it works, I’ll reward you. Pokemon, One Piece, or Batman references.