Morbeck,+Ben

I debated at Strath Haven High School for two years, and now I'm a freshman doing policy debate at the University of Rochester. Hit me up for that email chain if y'all are doing it: my email is benmo28@gmail.com Top level stuff: I have a lot of thoughts that I won't be able to get down in this paradigm, but the core of my philosophy is that I view debate as a game. I'll vote on any argument as long as work is put into it on the flow. I'll probably evaluate the round through a lens of tech instead of truth, if that distinction is meaningful. Most of my experience (and where most of my interest as a debater is) is in policy-oriented debate. That's not to say I have any structural bias against kritiks (I have and still do read them) but I'm less familiar with critical styles of debate and will probably lean towards the less-critical side if it comes to that. But there's always a debate to be had and I can be swayed to vote against my preferences - I actually do enjoy learning about critical theory and such. I'm decently familar with the China topic - I've done some prep and followed what some teams are reading so I should be sufficient in that regard. I also am totally fine with speed - go as fast as you want as long as you are (somewhat) clear. Some specific stuff: Topicality: I'll vote on that. I think neg ground is super important and while I'll vote on just straight-up competing interpretations, potential abuse, etc. if you can prove you lost any meaningful ground or that your core topic arguments don't apply against a topical aff I'll probably pick you up. I do think that affs that are far away from the topic can justify abusive counterplans and/or multiple conditional advocacies. Kritiks: The most important thing when reading kritiks against policy affs is to debate the case. There are a few ways that you can do that (either straight-up case defense or root cause claims), but your 2NR should be highly contextualized to the aff and if it's not it's going to be easy to vote aff. You should probably have a legit alternative and actually explain both how it solves the case and your harms (If the alt is "reject the aff" I'll lean affirmative). I also don't think the role of the ballot is as important of an argument as teams make it out to be. In terms of K-on-K debates, I don't have a whole lot of preferences, but I'm not really inclined to vote on the perm for affs. Disads: I love these. I guess that topic-based DAs are my favorite but I also love politics disads and totally understand the utility of them. Turns-case arguments are your friend if you're neg and are an essential part of any 2NR on DAs. As the aff you should prioritize some form of offense on them in the 2AC and really contextualize how your impacts interact with the neg's. Counterplans: These are cool. I would say advantage and multi-plank counterplans are my favorite but I'll vote on any counterplan. These debates can sometimes get pretty technical and in-depth with regards to the topic literature so if you're going to take that route make sure you explain it. I don't really have any problem voting on counterplans with contrived compeitition claims or classic "abusive" ones like consult or XO but theory is always an option for affs in these debates Framework: Topical version of the aff is a good argument. You should make that argument. Impacts are important in these debates (much more so than in normal topicality debates). Theory: See what I just said about counterplans. I don't think that rampant conditionality is particularly abusive but I'll vote on it if the aff wins it. Similarly I'll vote on any thing that's usually considered abusive (2NC counterplans for example) if you can theoretically justify it. Often times theory is under-utilized by aff teams - go for that shit. Other stuff: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Please disclose your aff - you should probably have it uploaded to caselist too. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I like quality evidence and am happy to reward teams who have it, but I guess in the end it's all about how you utilize it. If the other team's ev is trash point that out. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I love aggressive and risky strategies (1AR impact turns, going all-in on theory or going for presumption straight-up in the 2NR all come to mind) and I'll try to reward with with high speaks if done well.