Quinn,+Lee

Debate Experience: Mountain Brook High School '11 Wake Forest '15

Tid-Bit: I never was the smartest debater and I never will be, which means please do not make assumptions about argument understanding. Something could honestly just be over my head, this having happened multiple times in my debate career as a debater.

I also read along with speeches. I do not evaluate pieces of evidence I cannot double check as they are being read (unless paper, which I will actively write down the words for and check it was read in its totality after the round). Clipping is rampant and I feel as if judges have an equal obligation to stop cheating.

My favorite judges are DHeidt, Jarrod A., and Calum M., for my view of debate is a combination of technicality, ethos/passion, and a fair amount of nihilism.

Soft spots in my heart: No Neg Fiat, Intrinsicness, Conditionality (***This does not mean I will auto-check in on them***)

General Overview:

Whatever works go for it. Whatever you feel best suites your style I am down for.

My default is that card quality determines truth claims. Spin is necessary to distinguish which opposing truth claims are more "true".

Meta-level Issues:

As far as theory goes, I have very few predispositions. I'm a 2A- for whatever that means.

I believe impacts like hegemony are a meta level impact that implicates the entire round. If a team wins a very large risk of solving hegemony and adequately explain why that dampens the other impact it's very easy to win the round.

As far as specifics:

CP: I have a bias to protect the affirmative from “abusive” counterplans. These include consult, condition, threaten, etc.

Topicality: I think reasonability is VERY underutilized and mischaracterized by affirmatives. If your interpretation is reasonable for both the affirmative and the negative, I will tend to lean aff. I hate this rush towards over-limiting and competing interpretations because I don’t think affirmatives should be faulted because the negative can come up with a “perfect” world of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are strategic, however I tend to be leniant to counter-interpretations made by the affirmative to negative frameworks like "the judge is an academic" or "its not the job of the professor to re-write a failed paper so the k doesn't need an alt". I think more affirmatives need to hold the line against kritiks on framework; if y'all want to roll hard on exclude alternatives I will not ignore you. I think this fetish with race towards the middle is really hurting affirmative chance's against the K. I am ok with any ethical framing issues including death good etc., and will not be offended by such arguments. However such impacts like "endless warfare" or "extinction being inevitable" aren't big winners in front of me and are susceptible to quicker timeframe impacts or more clear impact arguments by the affirmative.

Performance: I am very willing to vote for anything said in the round, so feel free to do whatever y'all want, yet this is a double-edged sword in certain instances, because I do feel the negative is entitled to debate you on whatever plane they want to, and will treat their arguments with the same tabula rasa mindset as I do yours. I believe debate is more of a competition than educational format, which means I do not think I'm obliged to vote for you merely because your format is more ethical if y'all lose the debate.