Jeffcoat+Shelby

= Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs = - Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework. - I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made. - The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me - The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework - Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts. - If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me - If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T = Topicality/Theory/Tricks = - Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory - Weighing standards is the most important to me - I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps - I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard. - I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD = Phil = - I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me. - I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me. = Ks = - I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad - I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments - I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me - I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot - Specific link analysis is better than generics - There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr - Case defense is underrated in these debates - Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued - Performance is fine - There should be more debate about the alternative - The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate