Saiedian,+Ideen

ideen.saiedian [at] gmail [dot] com - Updated 2/17/15 Blue Valley West '12 USC '16

Rounds on topic: ~20

- Tech > Truth

- Presumption/terminal defense is possible. Proper ev and logical explanation should be applied to win a 100% takeout. Burden of proof is on the team introducing an argument

- Counterplans that have a solvency advocate, use the same agent as the aff, and compete based off the explicit mandate of the plan are legitimate. The further you deviate from this, the more I lean aff, but the negative can easily win by out tech'ing the aff

- I won't kick an advocacy for the neg unless they explicitly make an argument that I can and should revert to the SQ

- Feasibility is an important factor in determining desirability of critique alternatives

- I find myself voting for critiques more often because the aff mishandles "K tricks" in the 1AR. My threshold for answering these is relatively low

- Critical affs - I think affs should defend the topic, which is different from being "about the topic." In framework debates, I vote for these affs because negatives often read internal links (fairness, ground, predictability) without impacts, so please impact things like ground, limits, etc with how changing the countours of debate as a competitive activity will change the valuable things we get out of it. If the negative competently extends a framework argument, they will be in a good position.