Duran,+James

2014- : Northwestern University 2010-2014: University of Chicago Lab Schools (UC Lab)
 * Background:**

I will vote on almost anything. For speaker points, I often weigh strategic decisions as much as technical skills. That is not to say that the more technically proficient team won't be rewarded, I just think many very good and technical debaters get tunnel vision and don't know how to make connections that could make all the difference in my decision. Good debaters write the possible ballot(s) for me that would win them the debate, and un-write the possible ballot(s) that would lose them the debate.
 * Top Level:**

Tech over truth or truth over tech are bad models in my opinion. If anything, tech is a pre-requisite to truth. Accordingly, a conceded argument is a true argument if it is in fact an argument (claim+warrant/explanation/evidence). With evidence, I'm increasingly concerned that we are heading toward a norm where judges read every piece of evidence for which the author name is mentioned in the 2NR/2AR. I will rarely read a piece of evidence unless there is a clear disagreement in the debate over its content, qualifications, etc.

Speed is great if you're clear enough. I have no problem basing my decision on the fact that I did not hear something. If you were unable to properly communicate the arguments you needed to win, you should lose.

Also, please remember that there is a clear line between being aggressive and being obnoxious and/or offensive. I can tell you first-hand that crossing this line won't do anything for you.

Most importantly, try to have fun and respect the activity. I hope I never have to settle an ethics challenge, but a recording and the highlighted speech from both teams that prove clipping will result in an immediate loss for the team doing the clipping. I cannot say false ethics challenges will always result in an immediate loss for the team who challenged, because it depends on the situation, unless it's clear to me that they changed the highlighting (yes, unfortunately I have seen this happen).

-I have no predisposition to any type of CP, but I can certainly be convinced that a certain CP is bad for debate. What that means is, the aff should really try to contextualize the abuse story in terms of the exact CP, not only the type of CP. Neg, have a solvency advocate and most of their offense goes away if you do the work. Aff, see below about impact work on T. -If you want me to have the option of kicking the CP in the event of some theoretical/positional objection, make that clear in the 2NR.
 * Counterplans:**

-I lean toward the idea that the link determines the direction of uniqueness, but can of course be persuaded otherwise -Impact out your turns case arguments in a way that I can apply them (i.e. if they implicate solvency or just the internal link to an impact). -Just answer politics theory. If the articulation is as lacking as something like the two words "Vote No," then I'm quite lenient.
 * Disadvantages:**

-While I love the K, cheating frameworks bother me. I have a fairly low threshold for the aff to get to weigh their impacts. -The 2NR should engage and implicate the entire aff. I say this because the best way out of a tough spot for the aff is to isolate an internal link or full advantage that the block or 2NR doesn't have a link to or other argument that short-circuits it, and do impact calculus on why the corresponding impact outweighs the kritik.
 * Kritiks:**

-Saying "explodes limits" or the like is insufficient. Impact standards out to fairness, education, participation, or even fun (basically participation). -My two cents: -Ground is unconvincing, and predictability boils down to limits. -Limits is convincing. That being said, the neg should beat the aff to the punch on functional limits. For example, instead of including a few absurd possibilities in your case list to make it seem like you don't underlimit, narrow it down to possible affs that are actually strategic/reasonable to read and then debate it out on those terms. Overlimiting is always better than underlimiting, to a point. -With over/underlimiting, I don't know what the difference is between 10 and 15 affs, or even 10 and 20. This is where reasonability is persuasive, unless the neg explains why those extra five or ten are uniquely bad or justify more. -Reasonability is not an alternative framework for evaluating T, it's a way to evaluate competing interpretations. Reasonability also doesn't mean "reasonably topical," it refers to whether or not the aff being topical justifies a reasonable topic to debate.
 * Topicality:**

-If positional theory (i.e. not Conditionality/Dispositionality Bad) is intended as a reason to reject the team, articulate it that way throughout the round and have a more compelling abuse story that is applicable to the round as a whole. -Conditionality debates are fine, but it's like T. There's major impact work to be done even if there are more than two advocacies.
 * Theory:**

-I've given this some serious thought lately, and it's clear debate is moving in the direction of affs without a plan. I think to some extent these are fine and even beneficial to our greater worldview, but they should be relevant to the topic to have any hope of gaining traction on the framework debate. -In novice debate, these affs are rare, but I really believe that first year debaters should not read these affirmatives this early on in their debate careers. Obviously there is no brightline to when it becomes acceptable, but I was extremely persuaded by a novice team last year who used this to answer the aff's impact turns. A first year debater does not know what education is stale, nor do they know what the debate community is truly like. None of this is to say I won't vote for a novice team reading an aff without a plan that is relevant to the topic, just some thoughts to consider if you're negative against one.
 * Affs w/o a plan:**

Aff: 11 Neg: 10
 * Season Stats:**