Peeples,+Mason

//"Tech Determines Truth"// -God

PREP ENDS WHEN THE EMAIL IS SENT OR WHEN THE FLASH DRIVE LEAVES YOUR COMPUTER

Senior at Notre Dame High School and varsity policy debater Read whatever you want as fast as you want (as long as I can understand you). Given that, there are a few areas where I hold specific opinions:

**Kritiks--** I'm predisposed to believe that psychoanalysis is nonsense, so please don't scream at me about how the affirmative has neglected to mention "the lack". I've gone for a variety of Ks in my career as a debater, so I'm no stranger to critical arguments. This does not mean that I will automatically know what your baudrillard-lanza-lagotti-bataille-deleuze capitalism k says or that I will automatically vote on it. Explanation and contextualization is always good and I'm more likely to vote on your k if I actually know what it says. Link analysis is ALWAYS important, it's not enough to just read say "x system is bad, the affirmative did not talk about x system, therefore vote neg". You need to tell me what the affirmative did that was bad and how that causes your impacts. I don't think floating PIKs are the end of debate, and severing your reps is probably bad. I'm not super well read in terms of race/identity args, so please don't throw buzzwords at me and expect me to know what they mean. Basically, if you're explaining and contextualizing, you're good.

**Counterplans**-- Counterplans are tricky for me. I believe case specific counterplans or PICs can be extremely strategic especially if they are cut from 1ac evidence. As a 2a I'm generally pretty aff leaning in terms of CP theory, although I can be convinced otherwise. The one exception to this is probably word PICs. Unless the 1ac used blatantly offensive language I don't think there is a reason why the negative needs to fiat the whole aff minus one word. Extremely techy multi-plank counterplans also need to be explained to me in terms of how they go about solving the internal links of the aff. If you say advantage counterplans are a voting issue you get a 27.

**Topicality--** I don't have any specific bias on topicality, just tell me why the aff is or is not topical, and make sure to do impact calc in terms of why that matters. It's not enough to assert that the aff explodes limits, you have to tell me how and why that is important.

**Non-Traditional affs/Topicality vs. Non-Traditional affs**-- I'm down to listen to whatever you want to talk about, as long as you give me a reason why talking about that is good/productive/etc. Now given that, debate is a game. Procedural fairness is an impact, perhaps the only impact that my ballot can resolve. Despite this, debating the line-by-line on topicality is necessary to get my ballot. If you concede that debate is not a game or that it should not be viewed as such, I'm not going to automatically default to procedural fairness.


 * Theory--** I think condo is a reason to reject the team. 1 condo is not abusive. As a 2A I'm pretty sympathetic to 2+ condo illegit args. States CP seems pretty illegit, but neg teams are pretty good at telling me why it isn't so I guess that's a debate to be had.
 * __Other notes-- __**
 * impact calc is extremely important and not utilized in nearly enough debates
 * impact turns are underrated
 * case debate is also underrated
 * don't be rude, you'll get low speaks
 * you don't have to shake my hand after the round (please don't)
 * if you're funny, be funny. But please don't try if you aren't.
 * if I can't understand you I'll yell clear
 * I probably won't read evidence after the round unless there's a lot of contestation over a specific piece of evidence, and if I do read ev, I'm only going to read what you read in the debate
 * link of omission = 27.5
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">not going for a perm against a link of omission = 27