Dunne,+Jeffrey

Background/Summary – I debated 4 years in high school competing in Public Forum and now am in my 2nd/3rd year of policy debate at ASU (as a 2N). I spent the first year and a half debating an extremely policy-oriented Aff, with all the typical extinction-level scenarios (Heg, economic collapse, etc). The past year or so has been spent running a non-topical Aff and running one-off strategies on the Neg (Heidegger as an ontology critique). I am //extremely// open to almost any argument, and only vote on arguments that were made in the debate. Cheap shots are dumb, but if they are dropped for the entire debate I’ll vote on them.

Topicality –

I used to be extremely skeptical of teams that were non-topical, but my opinion of this has changed over the past year. If you are not going to be topical, than you //must// defend why your scholarship is comparatively better and why the current format of debate is bad. If you lose either of these, you will probably not get my vote on framework. The opposite is true for the negative in that you must prove that their scholarship is uniquely bad, and that traditional debate is comparatively better. In terms of conventional topicality, plan flaws and extraneous topicality arguments are probably going to be harder to persuade me on. You have to tie their instance of abuse to some larger impact, such as “justifies x, y and z” or something. Usually these arguments are just time sucks and the Aff should recognize this in the 2AC. You should obviously still make all of the standard arguments, but block explosion justifies new 1AR extrapolations. I know these explanations seem pretty broad, but I am pretty tabula rasa on the issue of framework/topicality. I have probably spent close to half of my policy debate career in framework debates, and am perfectly comfortable voting either way on these issues.

DA – I like me some DAs. Read cards in the right places, but spend most of your time doing impact calculus (magnitude/timeframe/risk), impact framing (we turn the Aff, we control internal link, etc) and evidence comparison (our evidence is more recent, their author isn’t qualified, etc). That is what separates good debaters from bad ones.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">K – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If you are on the Aff, make sure to defend the “ism” that they are critiquing (your epistemology, ontology or axiology), otherwise you are not going to be able to access your case. You spent 9 minutes reading your 1AC, don’t let them take that away. For this very reason, Framework should be run against 99% of Ks. I don’t think it is going to win you the debate, but it definitely helps you get back to your case. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Also, I see the K much like a DA/CP combo. Either you need to answer every component of the K (link, impact, alternative and framing) or you need to impact/link turn it. The alternative is probably the weakest part of any critique; you should troll them on it in the CX (while being polite). <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Explanation is massively more important than reading cards on most Ks. While capitalism or securitization may be more card-intensive, you should still spend the majority of your time explaining the debate through the lens of the K.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Case Debate – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I love these debates. I would say less than 1% of teams have good solvency, and even those teams probably have alternative means to solve written into their cards. I am more than willing to vote on case turns and case defense alone, although this will require some pretty awesome explanation.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Paperless Debate – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Prep time stops when the speech is //on the flashdrive//. This is becoming the norm so get used to it.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">CX – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Tag team CX is fine, but overly-dominant partnerships will find that their speaker-points will reflect their inability to work together. Also, while I do not mind some passion in debate, being rude during CX is the fastest way to tank your speaker points. Smug comments make you look like a petty fool, so don’t make them (at least in front of me).

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Speed – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">You can talk as fast as you want. If you are un-clear, I will call it out during the speech. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Framing – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The 2NR/2AR are the two most important speeches in debate. I will only vote on arguments that are in these two speeches, and tend to view the debate how you tell me to. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Considering I wrote this in about 10 minutes, you are more than welcome to ask me specific questions about my philosophy. Just know that I am mostly open to any arguments.