Johnson,+Joseph

 Current student majoring in Political Science. Debated on both local and TOC circuit in policy for 4 years for Dulles High School.
====I don't care what school you go to or who your coach is or how hard you worked on your strat. All in all you have to remember I'm a person just like you so you as a debater should be able to analyze my body language, demeanor, etc. in order to influence how you debate the round. Debate is an art of persuasion so ethos, pathos, and logos. Don't just read a bunch of cards and expect me to be convinced. ====

Overview:
==== My general view of debate is that what it means to participate and exist in the activity is completely decided upon by the debaters. Role of the ballot/judge (which includes fairness/education claims) and other higher level arguments that pertain to the debate space are persuasive to me as well, but make sure when justifying your view of debate you set up an actual framework for an educational model/whatever you think debate is and justify it. Also, please give me a way to weigh or evaluate impacts under whatever framing mechanism you choose because fundamentally I think all of these arguments are just framework arguments. ====

Aff:
====I don't care if it's policy or critical or performance, but you start the tone of the debate so make sure you grab my attention. I like critical affs but don't think you can get away with "the 1AC breaks down the hegemonic,normative,anti-queer, anti-black, capitalist blah blah blah" because it doesn't. Instead you should be weighing why your discussion should be evaluated before anything else in the round or before the resolution. ====

Kritiks:
====I did a lot of this in high school (primarily Afropess, D&G, Baudrillard the God, Fugitivity, Fear of Death), but I don’t think my actual views reflect what people might think based on the way I debated. I believe a critical argument is just a normal argument that draws claims from certain bodies of literature. There’s no difference between a K and a cp. I really like to have actual frameworks in K’s, which is very lacking currently in my opinion. I say this because otherwise evaluating impacts under the framing K’s set up can be very difficult —if running critical arguments, please be clear as to what counts as an impact. I don’t need everything to be “normatively justified,”but please somehow warrant why people in our current position should care about the impacts you claim to solve for. ====

Policymaking v K:
====To me, this debate is often extremely underdeveloped and people just extend arguments past each other to try to justify their interpretation of how solutions to critical problems should exist. My opinion is that this is largely a question of the role of the ballot. Also, when reading dumps, I want the differences between the warrants in your arguments to be very clear. For example, I don’t like the generic “we need real solutions”over and over again, I want a warrant for why in debate rounds real solutions are the most productive thing to produce. Likewise, I don’t just want “mindsets affect policymaking”I want to know the actual process of how a mindset or metaphysical paradigm actually affects the real world. ====

Topicality:
====JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY'RE UNTOPICAL DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE!!! With that being said I actually won a lot of topicality debates because a lot of teams don't understand how to use it to its full extent. ====
 * ====T is a procedural argument (debate about how we should debate) ====
 * ====Not allowed a lot of the assumptions that you’re allowed to make with other args ====
 * ====Have to find a way to compare defs without presuming that there is a one all be all definite interpretation of the resolution. ====
 * ====The only standard that’s real is limits and everything else presumes the topic already exists and we already know what it is ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In round and real world educations claims are too insufficient to win T which is a theory claim ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Don't talk about what they do but rather what they justify ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Should be debating about what the topic should be. ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Predictability and ground are args beg the question that we already have a definitive interp of the topic which isn't true bc if it was then topicality wouldn't been an argument ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">1st impact is education (limits) and 2nd is fairness ( __ is too broad to win without having cheap debate tricks) ====

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theory:
====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I'll evaluate it but like with condo and perf cons make sure you impact it out unless it's blatantly abusive then you can probably tell by my facial expression that you got my vote. I won like 10 rounds on plan flaw my senior year so anything is possible if you just do it right lmao. ====

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">CX:
====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Don't as me if I prefer open or closed. That's up to y'all because honestly I'd PREFER to use that 3 minutes to go to hospitality or something and grab some snacks. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">if you are clearly rude to your opponent, talk over them, intimidate them, or display any micro aggression your speaks will drop. You don’t have to be nice to your opponent, just be polite and have some respect. On the flip side, smart or strategic cx questions will award you points. If you’re friends with your opponent I’m cool with things being more casual. Otherwise, not much else to say here. CX belongs to the debaters in my opinion. ====

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I’ll give speaks based on clarity, execution of strat, and CX. I’ll clarify.
====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clarity - slow down on tag lines, pause before and after author names, even if just for a moment. If you don’t know how slow to go err on the side of caution and go slower. If I lose you I lose you and that’s completely your fault. I’ll make faces if I’m lost, and I’ll say speed and clear. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Strat - If the strategy is clever, or you just execute a straightforward strat very well, that will have a very strong positive effect on your speaks. That can be anything from reading 5 conditional off cases to sticking with the same position all round. Cool/interesting applications of arguments will also award you speaks. ====