Thach,+Lee

Debated for CSU Fullerton. 4-time NDT Qualifier. CEDA Octafinalist B.A. in Philosophy; working on M.A. in Communication. Coach Policy Debate for CSU Fullerton & University High School Coach Lincoln Douglas & Public Forum for CL Education

** GENERAL ** 1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed. Usually if you speak in a way that does not prioritize those criteria in that order, it will be difficult for me to hear what you are saying. 2. Framing is a top prior question for how I should evaluate this debate. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me. 3. I usually don't intervene when debaters are being rude, but if it doesn’t serve a strategic purpose, then I won't be of much help. If you are mean for strategic purposes, then I can work with that. But if you’re being mean to be mean, then I will not have much to contribute pedagogically other than to remind you to make arguments.

 **THEORY**: My main caveat to theory is that there needs to be an impact calculation debate based on whether the immediacy of theory impacts matter more than the substance of the affirmative or negative cases (ex. if the aff is unfair, then that shuts down discussions about the substance of the aff). I find that I tend to have a high threshold for abuses like condo, but I tend to have a low threshold for abuses like ableist language.

** NEGATIVE **

 **TOPICALITY**: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, make sure to list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that neg ground is key to resolve the voters. If you go for potential abuse, be prepared to explain why potential abuse is a more preferred impact over inround abuse.

 **FRAMEWORK**: When the negative runs framework, specify whether you are defending “policy debate,” “policy making,” or both. If you are defending policy debate, explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If you are defending policy making, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts, and why your framework resolves their impacts and/or an external impact. Personally, I have found dialogue to be the most strategic standard because it accesses both policy debate and policy making, though ultimately your preferred style of defending framework is up to you.

 **DISADVANTAGES**: Uniqueness is key to setting up the probability and timeframe, so that the link to the affirmative can access the magnitude of the external impact. Impact calculation helps me determine whose impacts I prioritize so that I can then work out whether the affirmative successfully link turns or impact turns the disadvantage.

 **COUNTERPLANS**: Solvency gives substance to impact calculation debates. If the CP is leveled with a DA, then winning CP solvency saves you from defending the status quo. Leveling case turns gives you the option of voting neg on presumption, which is good insurance in case you lose CP solvency.

** CASE **: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff case. I generally prefer seeing a 1NR answer case because they usually have the most time to dissect the 1ac, though I think a good case debate in the 2NC warrants for high speaks.

** KRITIKS **: Setting up uniqueness will help establish the root cause necessary for an impact calculation debate. When creating links, specify whether they are links pertaining to the fiat world or rhetorical links pertaining to the round. If the links are pertaining to the fiat world, explain how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If the links are pertaining to inround discourse, then explain why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a distinct pedagogical discourse. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then specify whether this is because you win a case turn, or because there is no impact to the aff.

** AFFIRMATIVES **

** TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES **

 **PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS**: Many affirmatives underappreciate their extinction impacts, treating it as sleight of hand rather than as apocalyptic alarmism. If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of impact defense (ie bioweapons don’t cause extinction). Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative.

** PLANS WITH SYSTEMIC VIOLENCE IMPACTS **: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, and some no link and impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change. In these debates, I think “perm do both” is strategic but “perm do the aff” is more honest. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Critical Race, Deleuze, Agamben, Surrealism, Fanon, Heidegger, Gojira, and Sacrificing White People. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT **: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** KRITIKAL IDENTITY AFFS **: If your aff is specific to marginalized groups (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc), then provide a structural analysis of how the aff impacts manifest metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively. Explain how the aff impact interacts with social phenomena (usually the topic) that people take for granted (such as race and the ecosystem, gender and international relations, or ableism and infrastructure). Specify how the solvency is enacted through the performance of the 1ac and/or the content of the 1ac.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> **NIHILIST AFFS.** These affs usually involve Western Postmodern authors like Nietzsche, Derrida, and Baudrillard, but recent works in Antiblackness and Settler Colonialism have also taken this approach. These affs are minimal in nature, and usually get by on intrinsic perms, aff on presumption, and other wizardry. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. You will need to frontload the permutation and offense due to the fact that there is not much to defend in the aff, which is both a strength and a weakness. Its a strength because you don’t link to anything, but its a weakness in that you depend on your opponents offense to generate your own offense. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.