Movsovitz,+Jake

I am a junior debater at Pace Academy. I spent 7 weeks at camp this summer and debate heavily on the national circuit, so I have a pretty good grasp of the topic. My understanding of the topic, however, does not act as a substitute for explanation. If an argument is not explained completely and coherently, i will not use your evidence or my knowledge of the argument to advance the argument for you.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. If the other team drops one of your arguments, they are conceding to me that it is true. In this case, you must extend the dropped argument into further speeches in order for it to stay in the debate.

PLEASE READ: My email is jmovsovitz@gmail.com. If there is an email chain, i would like to be on it. If the evidence is being flashed, i would like it to be flashed to me as well. I will read along with you as you read. If you clip/mischaracterize your evidence while reading it, I will stop the round, reward you with 0 speaker points, and a loss. I DO take prep for saving something onto your flash drive, but NOT for an email chain. This is because debates should use an email chain-- they're better.

I hate debates where the negative stands up and reads 7 off with very little highlighting and just impact D on case. Those debates usually rely on the affirmative side dropping something and the judge is forced to vote on something silly. PLEASE spend good, quality time on the case debate and carefully choose your offcase positions. I would much rather see 3 or 4 well highlighted off-case positions with the case covered effectively. This creates enjoyable, in depth debates. A 2ac that has to answer 4 minutes of good case coverage is way harder to give than one with limited or no case coverage.

I think stupid arguments can be beaten with analytics-- do not get bogged down in the cards/blocks. Your brain is your biggest tool in debates. Do not substitute instinctual arguments and logical takeouts to arguments for generic evidence or 3 pages of hardly applicable, pre-written blocks. That being said, do what you do and do it well. I have no personal bias against any argument (as long as it is not immoral i.e. death/genocide good), but i do understand some arguments better than others:

Disads: This is my favorite negative strategy. A good case specific DA coupled with solid case defense or a well articulated counterplan can be nearly unbeatable if executed effectively. I also do like when the negative executes a politics DA well.

CPs/Theory: I do like well thought out and case specific counterplans. I do not like silly consult counterplans or unrealistic conditions counterplans that are thrown into the 1nc to skew the affirmatives time. For some reason, I have always had a <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">very high threshold for what makes a CP competitive. Do not be afraid to go for competition/theory in front of me-- I think it is a very effective strategy against certain CP's. I <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">will not kick the counterplan for you. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team. Other theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. That is my worldview on theory.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Topicality: It is a procedural and I will vote on it. On this (surveillance) topic, T can be a very effective argument. This topic has seen teams race to the margins and get away with it. Do not be afraid to go for topicality in front of me. I think reasonability is a lot harder to frame than competing interpretations. "Reasonability over competing interpretations because competing interpretations creates a race to the bottom" is not a complete argument. You need to tell me <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">why your aff is reasonable <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">in the context of a.) the topic as a whole and b.) the negatives interpretation.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Kritiks: I'd say I'm "fine" for the K. I am less educated on the actual substance of these arguments but I am able to evaluate these debates on a technical level. I am much better for these arguments now than i used to be though. I have gained a lot of experience debating against and for these arguments this year. I do prefer topic and case specific Ks. Do not just spew pre written blocks, provide me with <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">in depth explanation on <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">all facets of the K debate. Unexplained "K tricks" are not arguments (see above).. in order to win the K you must win more than the line "fiat isnt real". I need to know what i am voting for-- i have to give an RFD..Also, i think a 2nr should probably include some <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">case defense. If this is what you do well then go for it, I'll vote on it.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Framework: I do think framework is a true argument. That does not mean I auto-vote neg when the aff doesnt read a plan text. <span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">I will vote for whichever side wins the debate. In my experience this year, i have found that it is actually a lot easier to engage the aff than i first thought, so i guess i am more aff leaning than i used to be. I think affs that center around identity can put me in an uncomfortable position-- i do not want to decide for YOU or against YOU, i would like to decide for your DEBATING or against your DEBATING

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Side Notes: There can definitely be zero risk of something. If there is zero or a marginal chance that the aff improves the status quo, i am not afraid to vote negative off of presumption. Presumption goes to the side with less change. There can be 0% risk of a link to DA-- that makes the risk of the DA zero, no matter how much you spew about an impact.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Stylistic Notes: Respect your opponent even if you think they are worse than you. Do not be overly aggressive in cross ex. A little attitude is fine and can even be appreciated, but if it is over the top you will see that reflected in your speaker points. Also, you can call me Jake not judge. If you are funny then be funny, but if you arent then dont try. I have a high threshold for what is funny, especially in the context of debate.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Good Luck