Losey,+Cade

Debate is bound by core tenets, but those can be stretched. I'm not going to vote on a case where the neg says JUDGE THE AFF DROPPED ONE ARGUMENT, VOTE NOW. I don't care if the aff drops every argument- there still has to be clash. Running a DA with no link doesn't test the aff, it wastes my time. The K is fine, but don't expect me to understand random author's perspectives. Be prepared to explain what the K means. The K is not meant to be run by everyone- so if you can't argue your evidence, don't read it. That goes for all arguments. Don't bother reading evidence that you don't understand.

You should be able to pronounce the words in your 1AC. That is the number one reason to NOT give a debater the one. The aff is the number one document that you should be able to read with clarity. Make sense of it, or don't bother trying to win case arguments. It's a deficiency in skill to fail to read with clarity.

Topicality is either very easy or very hard to win. If the neg doesn't offer a definition or standards, or voters, or any sort of warrant to WHY the aff is untopical, I won't be voting for T. That's it. If the aff doesn't answer with a counter-definition and warrants of their own, then T is to be voted on. "Warrants" doesn't imply "but T is bad", or "T is abusive." T isn't abusive. T isn't unreasonable for the aff to argue, if they choose not to refute arguments, I WILL VOTE NEG.

Of all the stock issues, I see solvency argued most often, but the rest are still relevant. I have to admit I have a soft spot for well-made inherency arguments. The point of the neg is to convince me why the aff is a bad idea. Don't just assume that your arguments link. Links are a fundamental part of an argument. I have trust issues with teams that take no prep before the 1N and run anything more than 5-off. Clearly you came in here with a pre-made case, or you're about to be the best debate team I've ever seen. Arguing links is important, and if you can't tell me why they link, and the aff says they don't, then I'm going to assume you concede that you don't link.

Dropping is NOT conceding. There is a difference. If the aff drops an advantage, that doesn't mean the neg wins. If the neg drops an argument, that doesn't mean the aff won those. Conceding is admitting failure. Dropping is strategy.

Impact calculus is a core part of debate. Those arguments should be refuted. FAILURE TO REFUTE REPRESENTS A DEFICIENCY IN SKILL. If a team loses on impact calc., they lose the debate. That being said, flash point impacts need to be explained well. All impact need to be explained well, but massive impacts need to have substantially well-explained. "Structural violence" is not an impact. Nor is "violence" or "infinite violence." What does violence cause? Give me an external impact, or don't expect to win.

CLARITY over speed, but speed is fine.

Lastly, role of the ballot arguments are fine, but tell me why the role of the ballot changes from what it inherently is. If your interp is arbitrary, then don't expect me to vote for it. Most interps are specifically related to the K. Run the arg, sure, but don't make it so the aff always violates the interp. That's abusive, and guess what- I won't weigh it.