Chotras,+Peter

(Updated 2013)

4 years of LD at Horizon High School (2007-2011). Policy debater at Arizona State since 2011. Assistant Debate Coach at Tempe Prep since 2011.
 * __ Experience __**

**__General__** - I think it’s very important to be courteous and respectful in a debate round. To paraphrase my high school debate coach, Susan Seep: I have a lot a respect for this activity, and I expect you to show respect for the activity. The way I think you show respect for the activity is by respecting each other. - Do impact comparison – tell me why your argument is more important than the arguments the other side says they’re winning. - Warrant comparison wins debates. Tell me why I should prefer your argument. Chances are that you’ll have answers to what they say, and they’ll have answers to what you say. Explaining why your answers are better is what makes the difference. - Speed is fine, but be clear. - Extending an argument means extending a claim, warrant, and impact. - If you debate paperless, you need to have a viewing laptop for your opponent(s). - I may not be familiar certain abbreviations or topic-specific jargon. - Flex prep and tag-team CX are OK - There is such a thing as zero-risk of an argument - I am often an inadvertent speaker point socialist - that being said, I try to reward smart, strategic decision making; politeness; clarity; and interesting argumentation/delivery. And Greek puns, which fall into all of those categories. - Feel free to ask me any questions before the round - Debate should be fun. Do what you enjoy.

**Kritiks**

I think the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the plan against the kritik but will vote for framework arguments advanced by the neg about why the aff shouldn’t get to weigh its impacts or why weighing those impacts is illogical.

For the aff, it’s an uphill battle to win that the K should be excluded from debate, but substantive arguments about the necessity of political engagement are persuasive arguments for why the alt can’t solve/net benefit to the perm.

The aff will have more leverage against the kritik defending whatever the negative criticizes instead of saying why those things don't matter (e.g., instead of saying "epistemology doesn't come first," defend the epistemology of the 1AC).

I don’t like Floating PIKs, but I will vote for them if the Aff doesn’t win that they’re theoretically illegitimate and/or they don’t solve the Aff. I'm also sympathetic to certain theoretical objections to different types of alternatives (e.g. reject alts or vague alts) - usually, these are not reasons to reject the alternative, but they do give the aff some leeway on the severance/intrinsicness arguments the neg makes against the permutation.

**Non-topical Affs**

I have been on both sides of the framework debate (but almost all of the time, I have been on the side reading framework against a non-topical aff, rather than defending a non-topical aff against framework).

Neg arguments are more persuasive when they are substantive, not theoretical. Arguments about engagement being a better political strategy, or ontological defenses of engaging institutions will get you a lot of leverage.

Line-by-line is not necessary, but clash and engagement of the other side's arguments is. Teams that go off the line-by-line should still be very clear in their impact and warrant comparison (telling me why their arguments are true, the other side's arguments are false, and their arguments are a reason I should vote for them).

**CPs**

I lean Aff on most counterplan theory (e.g., Consult, Conditions, Word PICs, International Actor, Multi-Actor, 50 States), with the exception of conditionality. But these preferences don’t automatically determine how I will vote on theory. You still have to advance a theoretical interpretation with reasons to prefer that interpretation. I just find some of the standards arguments more persuasive than others.

I believe counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive (but this should not deter a negative who feels good-to-go on theory).

If you think your counterplan is more nuanced and complicated than some of the more generic policy counterplans, it may be to your benefit to slow down a little bit for the text so I understand the counterplan by the 1NC.

I will not kick the counterplan for the negative, unless explicitly told so in the 2NR. If the negative does not tell me I can kick the counterplan in the 2NR, presumption can flip to the affirmative.

**DAs**

Run them! If you go for a DA in the 2NR, please do impact comparisons about why the DA outweighs and/or turns the case.

Try to stick to the line-by-line instead of grouping “the uniqueness debate,” or “the link debate,” when you’re extending the DA in the block. The better the line-by-line in the block, the less leeway I will give to the 1AR (and worse line-by-line = more 1AR leeway).

Aff - a link-turn without a non-unique is not a link-turn, just link defense. If the Neg wins that Immigration Reform is going to pass in the SQ, your plan can’t make it pass more.

**Case**

I think it’s strategic to spend a lot of the 1NC on case. It puts a big time crunch on the 2AC, and makes it easier for you to weigh the impacts of your off-case arguments against the Affirmative.

For the Affirmative, the 2AC should utilize arguments made in the 1AC when making responses to the Neg’s off case arguments. Don’t let your 8 minutes go wasted!

**Topicality**

I am a fan of a good T debate.

My default is competing interpretations. I also think that T is about what you justify, and potential abuse is a voter (but I will evaluate T differently if the Affirmative gives persuasive arguments against competing interpretations and/or why I shouldn’t look to potential abuse). The Neg will still be far more persuasive if they can prove in-round abuse.

If you’re making a reasonability argument, tell me what that means for how I should view the debate.


 * Theory **

Theory should be below top speed. I want to flow all of your standards.

I’ll listen to any theory argument with a clear interpretation and impacts.

I default to reject the argument not the team for all theory arguments except conditionality. Even if the other team does not say, “reject the argument not the team,” I will probably just reject the argument absent an argument from the debaters why that isn’t sufficient.