Kennedy,+Britain

3 years HS Debate 2yr Collegiate debate experience


 * 1. Clash and strategic decision making matter to me far more than argument choice** - I don't care what arguments you read. I just want to see a strategic move done *somewhere* in the debate. I'm a fairly diverse debater, so I can see the pros of reading any type of argument. Be clear, be concise, be smart, and all will be well.


 * 2. Tech over truth, any day -** if a debate becomes convoluted and confusing, it is highly unlikely that I will read your evidence to resolve it. That being said, I definitely do tend to call up more cards than average in debates that are done well. I will use my flow as a "truth test" - a speech is only held accountable for answering an argument that I have fully developed on my flow. If I see the 2NC make a two second argument saying "and we turn case" without any specific analysis done on it, it's likely that I will give a 2AR much more leeway to answer it when it's extended to a *full* argument in the 2NR. An argument consists of a claim, data, and warrant. An argument that is conceded is determined to be 100% true.


 * 3. Argument Preferences -**


 * a) Topicality** - I feel like I do my worst judging on debates that are resolved through topicality. That's not to say I won't pull the trigger on it, as a matter of fact, I'm probably more inclined to give risks of impacts to the negative, but that's probably because affirmatives don't answer it very offensively. Topical versions of the affirmative arguments are very persuasive to me. AFF should do as much as they can to make the reasons to prefer their counter-interpretation as offensive as possible. IE: The negative interpretation excludes core parts of the topic, we give them more ground, etc.


 * b) Disadvantages** - What is there to say here? Obviously I love them. Used as a net benefit to the counterplan that solves the case it can obviously make for a very deadly 2NR. I want to see some good link and internal link done, though. I do *not* like negatives that just assume they can get away with a dodgy link story because there's "only a risk of the DA and the counterplan solves." That isn't to say that you shouldn't make these arguments, I just think it's better debating and even more strategically viable to have the disadvantage ready to go as a DA + Case D 2NR just as much as a DA + CP 2NR. You never know what kind of trouble you're going to get in on the counterplan, whether it be via solvency deficits or permutations, so it's best for you on the ballot and in speaker points to have a coherent disad. Link probably o/w UQ in determining who wins net-offense.


 * c) Counterplans -** CP + DA or CP with an internal net benefit is by far my favorite 2NR to both debate and listen to. I think that legitimacy of counterplans and competitiveness are almost synonymous. If teams separate them I will treat them as such, but it only seems logical that if there's a normative reason that a CP is legitimate/relevant then a model of competition that eliminates it is bad and vice versa. **If a counterplan is conditional and there is no discussion of what this means I am willing to kick it and default to the status quo.** Permutations that are simply "Perm - do the CP" are fairly convincing to me when the counterplan could be an example of the affirmative. So if you're going for a counterplan that "does all of the affirmative", don't be surprised if I vote on the perm because well, you did all of the affirmative.
 * I like a good theory debate** – I probably lean negative. I enjoy a well researched, highly specific, and theoretically illegitimate strategy. If you can PIC out of a small aspect of the aff that is HIGHLY SPECIFIC and read four net benefits then I’m going to love that. I will begin to lean towards the aff on theory when your strategies are generic. So, I guess what I’m saying is, the more work you do, the more abusive you get to be. Here are things I think are fair for debate: dispositionality, PICS, topical counterplans, multiple alternatives, international fiat. Here are things I think are potentially unfair: consultation cps, condition cps, conditionality, counterplans based off of normal means. However, just because I lean that way doesn't mean I'm automatic - I'll just disagree with you.


 * d) Kritiks -** I like them, I suppose. You should know that it's not where I do the majority of my research as a coach or a debater, but I do understand the literature on most issues. You probably need to win alternative solvency to get very far in most cases. I'm less likely than others to vote on the "non unique linear capitalism disad" if you're not winning an alternative that solves. Generic critiques suck. I think link uniqueness is very important. If you can win link uniqueness and that the alternative solves, you'll get pretty far with me. Framework is a debate to be had, fairness is an impact, I guess. Affirmative can and should be making extinction outweighs arguments and using the aff to answer the K. I'm fine with K affs, and can be convinced that you don't need to be topical. Just win that debate.


 * e) Performance** - Not my thing. You probably want to strike me if you plan on performing. I've voted on performances before, but I tend to think that there are more effective forums for this kind of argumentation than policy debate. I am fine at judging performance vs performance debates, but when it gets to be clash of civilizations, that's where it starts to get a bit shaky. And performance teams usually don't like how I resolve it.


 * 4. Random**


 * Try or die is very persuasive -** Impact UQ is very important
 * ​Impact calculus** - I tend to think that this is either done poorly or not done at all 99% of the time. However, it is usually how I make decision in rounds. Arguments about why time frame [for example] is the most important mode of evaluating a debate are important. Arguments about why you control time frame, magnitude, and probability are useless without warrants. I believe I tend to overly rely on the impact comparisons when making decisions.
 * I love Warming good and Dedev -** Seriously.