Marban,+Alex

**gulliver prep 2012-2017** **wake forest 2017-** **updated pre-bronx 2017** email: alexmarban99@gmail.com ; email chain is 100% more preferable than pocketbox and flashing - name the email chain so that's it's easier to find later "name of tournament round 1 - team vs team" **top level** - i think a lot about debate and appreciate hard work - what that means is that you will be rewarded (either with speaks and/or the win) if you show extensive topic knowledge and know your stuff really well - it also gives me an incentive to work harder as a judge (I'll do this anyway but I love rewarding hard work) - this is mostly a guide of my thoughts on debate (and rants), but ultimately I'll vote on what's said in the round and only that (i don't care if you're from a big or small school, have more resources, something happened outside of the round that i have no knowledge about, etc) - obviously no one is a blank slate and at first glance it may seem I'm immovable on certain things and heavily lean towards policy (I am more well-versed in policy args), but this philosophy should mostly serve as my thoughts on debate in its current state and some things I could default to in a very close round - just because you agree with me on a certain issue doesn't mean I'll be a hack for you; the burden on you is to explain your arguments and why that wins the round - ultimately do what you do best even though I might have some predispositions on your argument - tech over truth, but when you got both going for you it's hard to beat - evidence quality is important, but good spin with high quality ev is also hard to beat - I'll read and look at ev, but will always default to how it was explained in round - "I believe that evidence is intended to give credibility to a debater's analysis, so don't let the evidence speak for itself -- give it your own analysis, and evidence comparison is a good way to both get higher speaks and my ballot." (stolen from holmes) - I won't vote on new 2nr/2ar arguments - you should still make sure you call them out on it or preempt them though in case you're wrong about them being new - respect your opponents - without them there'd be no point in debate which means you should strive to not be a jerk - be competitive all you want and a bit of sass is always appreciated, but anything past friendly competition is too much - if you rely on personal attacks towards others strike me - FLOW - if you don't do line by line or if you answer arguments that were in the speech doc, but weren't read your speaks will suffer - on a lighter note, it's great when teams make cross applications between flows that the other team kicks out of to force them to go back to that page - i'll flow on my computer - my handwriting's pretty bad and i type quickly so it makes more sense for me so i can make a better decision - i'll probably be reading ev during cx/prep just to understand more of it **speaks** - hard work (see above) - framing the ballot in the 2nr/2ar (i can usually identify the nexus question going into the 2nr/2ar, but when you do that and add even if statements to close doors you should be in a good position) - if it's a close debate and you know it slow down and flag the portions you know where you're ahead on and explain why that means you win <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- biggest pet peeve by far is when people steal prep - no you're not discreet and I won't even call you out on it I'll just dock your speaks <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- being clear > fast and unclear <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- labeling (especially links) - ie the backlash link, the lobby link, etc <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- titling flows in the 1nc <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- rereading/recutting your opponent's ev when it goes the other way (if you do this though you have to actually read it in your speech not just insert a rehighlighting) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**framework/t-usfg** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- honestly some of my favorite debates; discussions about why and how we debate are important - this was by far the worst/most frustrating part of adapting to judges as a debater - I am not ideologically opposed to anything and will vote based off of my flow, however, there are some things I believe are more strategic and true: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- t-usfg > fw <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- debate is a game no matter what and the ballot can only determine a winner and a loser nothing else <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- fairness is an impact in it of itself, but it must be explained properly to warrant an impact <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- debate isn't roleplaying, debaters formulate an opinion based off of what the federal government should do; no one thinks they are the usfg <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- topical versions of the aff - this is where many judges hang their hat on which is understandable and I see its utility, but when the aff is about debaters themselves and/or when they just have a huge leg up on why the federal government is bad for [x] or they're not even in the direction of the resolution it's difficult to pull off - however I do think if you win that the aff has violated the game and your fairness impact then there's no need for a tva because the aff created an unfair burden and aren't affirming the resolution which makes a topical version impossible --- more often than not the tva is a good safety net and I will vote on it so long as you explain how it can include the aff's discussion <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- the aff should explain what debate looks like under their interpretation (ie what the role of the negative is) instead of just impact turning standards, but again you do you <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- education is a result of debate, but not the reason why people debate in the first place (competition, friends, fun, etc) - I think a topic specific education impact is good when in conjunction with a tva, but topic education shouldn't be the primary focus of the 2nr <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- take all of this with a grain of salt - it may seem like i'm a hack for fw, but in reality i have high expectations for what constitutes as a good fw argument and that means i'll hold both the aff and neg to a high threshold to explain all of their business - just know if you beat the other team you're going to win - these debates can go downhill real quick so if you know your stuff and can defend it well then you'll be in a good spot <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**k affs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I need to understand what the aff's method does, what does the ballot do, is there a spillover claim or not, what my role is, etc <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I honestly don't think the aff should get perms in method debates, but I still think the neg has to win a link to the aff (whether it's about their theory/author, links from cx, etc) and you have to explain why they shouldn't get perms <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- presumption is always underutilized which is a shame <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**kritiks** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I grasp the "traditional ks" (cap, security, etc) and read some queer theory (puar), but most high theory ks will need to have a lot of explanation for me to understand clearly - absent your explanation it'll be my understanding of it which may be different from yours and might not end up favoring you - even if you read a traditional k or something I've read before you still need explanation - if your thing is just to confuse the other team and/or avoid questions strike me <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- role of the ballots are arbitrary and I'll usually let the aff weigh the case, but winning framework (indicts to the aff's epistemology, winning that comes 1st, etc) and your offense should bite back against them winning on case outweighs <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- plan focus debate is the gold standard so link contextualization is crucial - getting links in cx, rereading 1ac evidence, getting links off of the plan's mechanism, and spin about the aff will be rewarded over generic links that aren't about the aff -- label links!!! <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- alt explanation is also important - what does the ballot to do to remedy [x], are you fiating anything if so what and who, how does it resolve the links, etc - the aff should press on the alt more because the neg usually gets away with murder <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- general explanation (on both sides) of the perm, alt, impact are usually late breaking so framing it early on is preferable to ensure there aren't any new args in the 2nr/2ar <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- answer the tricks - aff (serial policy failure, fiat double bind, root cause, etc) and neg (perm double bind, theory, pinker, etc) - annoying to vote on and as equally annoying to lose on those <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-- also make your tricks clear and slow down if they're your go-to - really awk for everyone when we find out in the 2nr it's a floating pik, but it's also equally awk when the aff never asked in the first place <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**theory** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- generally, a reason to reject the arg and not the team (except for condo) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- abuse stories are essential and need to be there in the 1ar to be viable for the 2ar - there should be some time investment if you want to go all in in the 2ar <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- some condo thoughts - 1 condo isn't abusive, 2 condo is defendable, over 2 is risky <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**disads** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- all for it - politics, case specific disads, whatever you got is all good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- the link debate is most important - you should be rereading 1ac ev, garner links from cx, and read links about the plan - labeling the links makes it a lot easier to flow/organize/extend <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- impact calc and turns case is important, but most of the time debates don't come down to that so focus on the nexus question - ie don't spend 3 min of the 2nr on why heg o/w warming and then get to the rest of the debate with no time <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- ev comparison is important in these debates, but you need to do the work - i won't intervene and do the work for you <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- defense can be devastating <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**counterplans** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- if you're reading a super complicated cp you need to slow down and explain what the cp does <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- solvency deficits need to be warranted and impacted out <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- generally will probably lean neg on theory questions, but generally, will default to how specific the solvency advocate is to the aff/what the direction of the topic is <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- topic specific cps are best <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- advantage cps are underutilized <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- love when aff solvency advocates write cps for the neg! <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- functional > textual competition - these debates can get complicated easily, framing and closing the doors will be essential for winning this - I think it takes too much to flesh these things out and I think leaves the door to open for too much judge intervention that I don't want to do <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**topicality** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability could make sense in certain contexts <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- in round abuse isn't necessary to win t (don't know where anyone got that from), it does help in certain debates but it isn't the end all be all - the neg needs to win that the aff justifies [x] and why that is bad <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**case** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- essential in any 2nr <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- impact turns are great, but get messy quickly so organize accordingly <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- solvency take outs and internal link defense > impact d but i am a sucker for good impact defense