Aust,Mike

I debated for four years at Notre Dame and am currently in my second year of college. I leaned toward the K and other similar arguments when I debated, but I also read disads, counterplans, etc. I will spare the witty introduction and get into what you actually care about in no particular order.

__In General:__ This seems like it should be intuitive, but just in case, Aff team, DO NOT FORGET THAT YOU JUST SPENT 8 MINUTES reading offense to whatever the Neg says (for the most part). Tell me what I should care about in the round. The better you explain your arguments to me, and how they relate to those of the other team, the more likely I am going to vote for you. I will vote for anything. I have biases, which you can in know way have complete knowledge of. So, tell me how I should evaluate arguments so you don't get bitten in the ass by my biases later. I like critical arguments (more than straight up policy args) because it allows you to show me how much you really know, and how well you can connect seemingly different interpretations of the world/reality. If you are going to read an argument, at least have a minor grasp of the concept behind the arguments you read. If you do not know the difference between funny and stupid, do not attempt funny.

__Topicality:__ I will vote for T even if the negative does not prove actual abuse in the round, although it will be very difficult to win that way. If you do prove abuse however, you will make my job a lot easier. IMPACT your T arguments. I do not care if the Aff is reading a plan from 3 years ago. If all you say is "They are not topical, they should lose" I will not vote them down, and I will want to hit you. And do not think that "fairness outweighs education" is enough of an impact for me to agree with you, because it isn't. Aff - feel free to kritik topicality. I can be persuaded to vote the Neg down because T is bad for whatever reason.

__The K:__ I can either love these debates, or hate them with every fiber of my being, and that is up to you. PLEASE be familiar with the argument you are reading, having actually read some of the literature BEFORE you read the argument in the round. Make the link specific to their Aff somehow. I believe that you __do not__ need a piece of evidence for this if you can articulate your argument and present it in a fashion that makes the Aff feel ashamed that they link. If you cannot do this, then don't read the K. Impacts - Insert what I said about the Links. Also, how often does "ontological damnation" actually outweigh billions of dead people. Explain why it turns case, which I lean toward anyway. I think the alt/your framework can be made to solve anything, if not, at least attempt to make this so. I don't think you necessarily have to win the alt in order to win the K, just make sure though, that I am not just dealing with some non-unique DA at that point.

__Disads:__ Impact analysis - I am willing to vote on an arg that is explained better vs. someone who is just rocking you in a card war. Also, you do not outweigh on "Magnitude, Timeframe, and Probability". Pick one or two and really drive it home. Bonus points if you explain why your calculus comes first i.e. why timeframe matters much more than magnitude. AFF - I honestly believe there can be "No risk of the link". It will be hard to win with purely defensive arguments, but I am willing to listen especially when it seems intuitive. Extrapolate the warrants in the evidence and apply them to the debate round. This sounds easy in theory, but too few people actually do it. I won't lie, I hate the Politics DA. I hate it with a passion. I mostly hate it because it turns into a terrible debate based on even worse evidence. But, if you apply all of the above, then I will vote for you.

__Counterplans:__ A well researched counterplan that is specific to the Aff, that is also properly executed, is beautiful. Treat all of your counterplans this way, even if they are generic. Consultation - I want a specific piece of evidence that says "X country cars about Y". You may ask, how specific is specific enough? My answer is that you know it when you see it. A piece of evidence that says "China cares about U.S. policy," YOU MIGHT AS WELL NOT EVEN READ IT. But fret not, even if you do not have a specific enough piece of evidence, I believe you can still win that consultation outweighs for whatever reason.

__Theory:__ Insert some of the stuff I said about T arguments. If the debate turns into a cluster-fuck I will just start not caring about what you say. Clear it up for me. Always give a counter-interp - If you read Condo bad, use "They could have just run it dispo" as answers to their Condo good arguments. It will help you tremendously.

My opinion on some theoretical issues: The negative can run multiple contradictory frameworks unless they do not cheat while doing so. No using answers against framework "A" as links to framework "B". But if the negative team should happen to do this, and the Aff doesn't get angry enough (don't worry I would pretty much vote the neg down if they do this) then proceed with cheating. I am slightly biased to "T outweighs theory" but I completely sympathize with "Theory outweighs T," because sometimes it does. Just tell me when. Consultation is kind of dirty. And lastly, sometimes you just have to go for Condo bad. Just debate well and I will definitely try to help you out if in fact going for Condo was the strategic choice.