Kowarski,+Jonathan

Some background: I'm a college student who debated four years in high school. I was a 2A and therefore have what many 2Ns might call unfair affirmative biases when it comes to theory against counterplans and kritiks. I never had the best flow or the best ear for understanding speed when I debated, and I'm probably worse now than I was then. So please be clear when you debate in front of me and remember the saying that "speed is not how many arguments you say, but rather how many arguments the judge has written down on his flow." **Good communication skills will be rewarded with higher speaker points.**

The ideal framework of debate: In my mind the goal of a debate round should be to determine whether the government should or should not implement the affirmative. That said I am perfectly open to focuses that kritik the way that arguments are presented and their moral implications. Debate should be just as much about rhetoric as it is about logic, so don't let your oppenent get away with just any claim supported by evidence.

Counterplans: I tend to believe that counterplans that have agents other then the USFG (i.e. International, state, or private actor counterplans) are illegitimate because **they fail to test the opportunity costs that the USFG faces, and are therefore irrelevent to what decision it should make**. I probably will not vote against you for running them, but be aware that you will face an uphill battle when it comes to theory. I tend to look down on process and agent counterplans because unless the affirmative specifies a process or agent within the USFG, they are irrelevent in determining whether the policy is a good idea. Beyond that go nuts. I have always been a sucker for advantage counterplans and case turns, as well as well-researched PICs. HOWEVER, I DO NOT GENERALLY LIKE WORD PICs, except against affs that claim solvency off of rhetoric, then they're legitimate.

Kritiks: Debate impacts are dumb, Kritik them and you will probably make me happy. Debate should first and foremost be a discursive educational activity. This means that if you can articulate a reason why the construction of the affirmative is harmful to the education of those involved (ie. by encouraging sensationalized rhetoric that will lead to bad decision making in the future or by encouraging discrimination) you can win even if the affirmative is a good idea. This does not mean that I like to pull the trigger on moral obligation arguments, I just believe that debaters have to be held responsible for the words, because words have power, and advocacy skills will be necessary in any field the debater chooses to enter. That said, I think that "kritik debaters" too often fail to explain how the type of thought that the affirmative is encouraging, not only **undermines the affs truth claims** (putting in question the validity of the affirmatives impacts), but also makes their impacts either inevitable or exasperates them. A lot is made in debate about alternatives, and I guess it is important to explain what would be better if the affirmative speakers did not engage in a harmful speech act, but most of the time I think they are both the weakest and least important part of the Kritik. Your kritik is not going to save the world and more than the affirmative is, it'll probably be a lot less practical on a larger scale, so if you have me weigh the affirmative and the kritik as policy options you are probably going to lose.

Case Debate: I probably don't know much about the debate topic, SO DO NOT GET TOO TECHNICAL WITH YOUR USE OF ABBREVIATIONS. I always found case debates to be incredibly interesting. So if you just want to focus on the affirmative feel free to.

A NOTE ABOUT IMPACTS: TERMINAL IMPACTS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS RIDICULOUS. IF YOU LET SOMEONE GET AWAY WITH AN ASTEROIDS, SOLARFLARE, OR SPARK TYPE ARGUMENT YOUR SPEAKER POINTS WILL SUFFER, USE COMMON SENSE. Great impact debating makes for great debates, but it is not done by yelling about whose impacts are bigger or more probable, its done by explaining how your impacts interact, do that and I will happily reward you.

Disadvantages: If they make sense go for it. I do believe that defense can take out a DA, and that a nominal risk can probably be ignored if the probability is low enough, but I can be convinced the other way.

On performance affirmatives: I am willing to listen. I feel like the way that debate is structured is problematic and that there is far too much of a focus on technicality vs. agency and rhetorical skill. Debate should be an activity that people should be able to walk off the street and appreciate, not that you have to spend years participating in to understand. That said, the affirmative probably should open itself up to a discussion of the topic. If your affirmative does not open itself up to an opponents response, then I am likely to vote against you on a theoretical argument, if it does allow for a sophisticated discussion or debate I will probably be fine with it.