Hegna,+Jacob

Jacob Hegna jacobhegna [at] gmail [dot] com

Last edited: 21 October 2015

4 years of debate @ Blue Valley Southwest, class of 2015 currently debating @ the University of Kansas, class of 2019

Top level
1) Evidence quality comes before spin. If the aff reads long, highlighted cards from 2015 and the neg reads 2 line cards from '2k, I'll be very unwilling to vote neg. However, this does not mean that spin is irrelevant. Reading a good card but then failing to extend the warrants is functionally the same as reading bad evidence. 2) Tech over truth 3) I am not ideologically neutral. If I'm judging a close debate between a no plan aff and framework, the neg will most likely win more times than not. I am aware of these biases and will try to prevent them from altering how I would judge a debate, but they're obviously impossible to eradicate.

**Topicality**
No-plan affs - I think affs should be topical. I do not think that this is a rule and if you break it you lose, but I am generally not persuaded by most aff answers to framework/T. I think the best impact for this argument is fairness. A 2ac counterinterp that is just "fuck your framework," etc is just defending "no topic debate" and I will be extremely skeptical of most of the other responses.

Plan affs - I think limits and precision are the best impacts. I can be persuaded that one is better than the other. I think competing interps is the best model of resolving these debates, and just saying "reasonability" at the end of the 2ac on T isn't an argument.

Disads
The 1ar needs to answer the block's turns case arguments. I am more persuaded by link/impact uniqueness arguments than just saying "their ev is really generic" (for clarification, the 2ac should point out logical alternative causes that implicate generic link ev instead of just asserting that it's generic). I think the politics disad is a good argument, but only when the debate happens on a deeper level than "will pass" or "won't pass."

Counterplans
I think counterplans can be highly strategic against a poorly constructed affirmative, and I especially like advantage counterplans that exploit this using re highlighted 1ac ev. Word PICs will not win debates in front of me if the 2ac answers them properly.

I am more familiar with the neolib/security/etc literature than the Baudrillard/Bataille/Deleuze stuff. I am willing to vote on either, but I need more explanation of the latter than the former. The aff should get to weigh implementation vs the alt. I think affirmative's are usually too easily dissuaded from impact turning the thesis of the k - I think a 2ac that impact turns cap/security/heidegger/etc is very strategic and usually underutilized in favor of just playing defense.
 * Kritiks**

I think the best kritik debates are ones where the k comprehensively addresses the affirmative. What I mean by this is that I would prefer a k debate where links are fleshed out for each advantage and the theory of the k is explained in a way that deeply implicates the aff, not just a k that says "death good" or "incoherence good."

Microaggressions/wrong pronoun usage/"you guys"/etc - if the team who says the supposedly offensive thing was obviously not being malicious and apologizes, I don't see myself voting against them. If you rely on this style of argument to win debates, I am a bad judge for you.

I generally think that condo is the only reason to reject the team, but I can be persuaded that other things are too. However, I think condo is good, so I have a very high threshold for voting aff on it. If you are neg, you do not need an interp on condo, a sufficient defense of 2 condo is also a sufficient defense of 20.
 * Theory**

For Kansas debaters
1) I prefer to disclose my decision and give comments (unless the tournament prevents it), so stay in the room after the round 2) If I am on a panel with parents/lay judges, I will alter how I judge debates slightly to accommodate that. In other words, if it's a slow debate, I am comfortable voting negative on inherency/solvency/etc, however I will still not render a decision based on speaking skills alone