Bishop,+Jacob

About Me: I debated for CPS for four years. I'm going to University of Chicago, and am not debating in college. Feel free to email me with questions at jacob (dot) bishop (at) gmail (dot) com

Meta—Issues: Smart arguments > true arguments. Most debates are decided on who has said fewer dumb things in the nexus questions that end up mattering. I see debate as a game: you should read whatever you think is most likely to win you the round, whether that’s the Bataille K or Con-Con. Just because I read it doesn’t mean I want to hear you read it. That said, talking extensively about the case will improve your speaker points at least marginally. Technical drops are only important insofar as they are impacted in terms of the rest of the debate. Tell me why what you won matters. This is more obvious at some times than others…

Argument-specific notes:

Framework—I default to assuming the aff should defend a topical USFG policy, but that’s completely subject to change based on what happens in the debate. Topicality—If you read your blocks the at the speed you would cards, you’re probably going to be pretty unhappy with my decision. Beating the K: “Discourse doesn’t shape reality” is a bad argument. “Academics overdetermine the degree discourse shapes reality, and that trades off with focusing on material threats” is a good argument. “Ontologies of deterrence good” is a winning argument. Politics DA: Internal link defense substantially reduces the risk of the impact.

Pet Peeves: Empericism is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Statistical analysis is NOT empirical because it requires that you TRUST others' data.