Jaffe-Goldstein,+Sam

Things to know- currently not debating but coaching the Beacon debate team and currently attend Bard college (probably gives you all the information you need about my philosophy). Anyway here is my lay of the debate land- I am open to everything in the debate round I was a critical debater in high school but this means nothing to you I will always listen to what you have to say no matter what it is. However, I would always rather have a substantive debate after debating for four years I would like to think debaters are having a discussion and should always remember that while in round. What else is I think debaters get bogged down in the competitiveness of debate and not what's happening around them, remember we are discussing people's lives and as debaters we should have the integrity to reflect that. Topicality- I like it however, I think that debaters don't engage in the philosophical assumptions of Topicality enough. For me topicality is about the ideas of fairness and what it means to engage in a good debate versus a bad debate, I think if you are dealing with those sorts of questions in a T debate I will give you more weight. Counter-plans- I'm not up on my counter-plan theory debates so be aware before you go for any C/P theory. Also I like more specific counter-plans then your regular consult nato ones. D/as- I read the paper, bbc, and al Jazeera but that will be my extent of knowledge of whats happening in a Dis-ad round, doesn't mean you shouldn't run it, just be aware that you may need to explain things to me that you don't have to judges who are used to d/as. Critical Arguments- What I'm most familiar with I'm fine with everything the most important thing you need to do for me is prove why not does your K/whatever link to the affirmative but also why this matters, what is the reason your running this and what does it mean that I vote for you. Ballots are the currency of the debate world, so what does it mean if you gain my ballot? Also no problems with performance Also I think people run framework to much when there are obvious ways to just attack the Criticism.

Also debaters should be nice, arguing is fun and sometimes we get carried away and start screaming, this is never fun for anyone and usually leads to a bad debate. Like every other judge I love explanations (and historical examples) and I want to know what your position is and why voting for you is so important, if this is not explained I will probably not vote for you. I hate blipy arguments and I dislike teams even more who decide to go for them, think of me as a child who knows nothing and you have to explain everything to me.