Bleiweiss,+Rikki

last updated - october 2017 Current debater at University of Texas at Austin, current coach for the Kinkaid School

*this is how i evaluate things //when you don't tell me how to//

 - Be nice to each other  - Controlling big picture questions of the debate is almost always more important than tech minutia. In other words, dropped arguments are true arguments, but not always important arguments. Identify which issues matter the most and invest your time there. Tech can certainly influence key issues, but rarely replaces them. - Arguments don't "count" unless they have a claim, warrant, and impact  - 0% risk is easier to get to in front of me than many others; don't rely on your impacts alone but also on the strength of your internal links
 * The most important things to know, regardless of argument genre: **

**Theory ** - I think about theory debates much the same way I think about disads: there must be a clear link, internal link, and impact. Impacts should be weighed (does education outweigh advocacy skills or vice versa?) and internal links should be challenged. A pet peeve of mine is when debaters claim that minor theory arguments are a reason to reject the team - if you want to win this is true, you need to articulate a reason why the impact to your theory argument rises to that level. Additionally, contextualize your impacts to the round. Theory debates in the abstract are unpleasant. **Topicality ** should be about why your interpretation is best for debate and best for the topic. Reasonability is about the counter-interpretation and not how abusive the aff is. Read the Theory section above; impact out and weigh the standards of your interpretation against your opponent's. Same for **framework**, I tend to evaluate it by beginning with impacts. So, like theory in general, don't stop with internal links. **Disad/case debates ** - The only special thing I can say here is that the strength of your internal links matter, I rarely decide a scenario has chance of happening if one team is winning the scenario doesn't happen. **Counterplans - ** competition and theoretical legitimacy aren't always exclusive concerns. ground these debates in the round you're having. take a moment and tell me what's different about the counterplan and the aff, especially if you want to mega cheat. **<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Kritiks ** - If you insist on putting everything in an overview instead of on the line by line, there's only so much I can do in terms of lining everything back up for you at the end. don't assume I know your literature base. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">K affs ** - for the aff - tell me what they do, or tell me that they don't //do// anything but that's the point. the more upfront you are about the method of the aff, the easier it is for me to know what the impact is and how you solve it, which is basically always how I evaluate affs. neg - the more vague the aff is, the more room that gives you to control the spin of what the aff is and what it does. if you forfeit all of this discussion entirely, don't be shocked when I tend to believe the affs interpretations/explanations of the 1ac and it complicates your link stories.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Notes by genre: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Evidence **is not a substitute for arguments. Citing evidence in the final rebuttals doesn't replace the need for you to extend a warrant. If you can't explain the argument, I won't call for the card after the round in order to decipher it. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Role of the Ballot ** arguments need to have an actual reason for being the role of the ballot, asserting the phrase alone isn't enough.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Random other things: **