Van+Bibber,+Thomas

__**Thomas Van Bibber**__


 * Position:** Assistant Director of Debate, Marquette University High School (2015)


 * Experience:** National Policy Debate, Marquette University High School (2011-2015)

For what it is worth, I am currently a first-year at Duke University studying a disorganized hodgepodge of disciplines.

__**Top Level Considerations**__

My paradigm should not influence which arguments you intend to make, but rather how to make those arguments so as to most effectively influence my decision.

The easiest way to win my ballot is to provide and warrant a lens through which I should evaluate the round most favorable to the argument you are making. These predominantly take the forms of "role of the ballot", "evaluate this debate through a lens of", or "comes first" type claims. Lenses like these can be used for any breed of argument.

Impact each and every argument by providing reasons why a given argument should or shouldn't influence my decision calculus. For instance, if you think you are winning an argument, answer "why is this important?", or if you think you might end up losing an argument, answer "why doesn't it matter?". "Even if" statements are also your friend.

I default towards tech over truth, but I encourage you to dissuade me from that if doing so benefits your argument. This does not justify blippiness, as quick, warrantless arguments would then necessitate some external intervention of truth to support them.

Evidence quality is crucial, so impress me with your research but also your ability to recognize inadequacies in your opponents' research by comparing warrants and impacting that comparison, not assuming I will call relevant cards. However, an insightful analytic is a beautiful thing that will be rewarded.

The debate round is structured to encourage a strategic narrowing of argumentative focus, so please do so. This is best done by posing a few nexus points and proving why you win them. The team that most accurately and advantageously identifies which key arguments the round boils down to will more often than not win that round. Put simply, do your best to write my ballot.

__**Specific Arguments**__

Fire away. I find affirmatives with exhaustive methodologies most convincing, but have no inherent reservations with merely aligning my ballot with a particular cause or epistemology. Responding to these affirmatives with a counter-methodology or criticism is typically most strategic and fosters the most engaging debates, but framework arguments are still a legitimate and important test of non-traditional affirmatives.
 * Non-Traditional Affirmatives:**

I am too young to call framework debating a "lost art", but understand that I enjoy a nuanced, highly contextualized framework debate and will not hesitate to defend the resolution if effectively prompted. However, winning framework against non-traditional affirmatives structured principally to refute framework is clearly an uphill battle, and so although I am not ideologically opposed to it, framework is rarely your best option. Affirmatives that primarily beg unique pedagogical questions are most successful in defending against framework, but are by no means invincible.
 * Framework:**

The "Top Level Considerations" are particularly applicable in these debates, as constructing lenses through which to evaluate properly impacted arguments is your surest course to victory. Though I am familiar with most critical literature, your analysis must still be substantive, particularly on the link and alternative as the permutation is oftentimes very persuasive, especially with nebulous alternatives or links of omission.
 * Kritiks:**

Providing and warranting a lens through which I should evaluate your theoretical objection or topicality violation will drastically increase your chances of winning it. Without any reasonability claim, I default to competing interpretations. Comprehensive and contextualized impact analysis carries more weight than a conceded blip hidden at the end of a subpoint.
 * Theory and Topicality:**

A plan-specific counterplan is my favorite argument, although I understand the utility of generics. Impacting comparative solvency arguments is crucial--a vague, unwarranted reference to something "solving better" usually does not meet the threshold for solvency analysis. Permutations originally coupled with a "shields the net benefit" argument are always more convincing than a thoughtless laundry list of perms. I am not afraid to reject a counterplan proven illegitimate by the affirmative team.
 * Counterplans:**

I am an unfortunate sucker for the politics disadvantage, but a 2AC with a card or two and a few insightful analytics identifying the inconsistencies in the 1NC shell (of which there will be many) is much more damning than a pre-written block, and will also boost affirmative speaker points.
 * Politics:**

A warranted, turns/solves case argument made in the block is a strategic weapon that can clinch the impact debate, given a proven risk of external offense. However, impact calculus is necessarily tied to the internal links that construct the impact; therefore, I struggle to view the risk of terminal impacts in a vacuum but rather in the context of the disadvantage writ large. Consequently, a "conceded impact" and thus a completely true impact only exists when the entire disadvantage is conceded, as the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of said impact are determined by its internal links.
 * Disadvantages:**

Case debates are incredibly interesting, and I like to reward teams that make the most use out of their 1AC in later speeches. Simple case overviews can be both strategically and organizationally advantageous, and so I encourage you to employ them judiciously at the top of advantage flows. My discussion of impact calculus in the disadvantages section also applies here.
 * Case:**

__**Cosmetics**__

Obvious Cliche #1: Go as fast as you can, as long as it is clear. Obvious Cliche #2: Understand that if I do not hear the argument, I will not flow the argument, and thus will not evaluate the argument. I will notify you if a clarity issue is present. Otherwise, odds are I am keeping up, though I do flow on paper.
 * Speed:**

You have as much time as the tournament awards and the timer stops when you say you are flashing, as long as you do so with expedience and integrity. Though I will usually maintain a timer, please keep your own speech and prep time.
 * Prep:**

If indisputable evidence arises that clipping took place, in accordance with community standards, I will give a loss and double zeros. However, the threshold for this is incredibly high.
 * Clipping:**

__**Notes**__

Jokes that make me laugh increase speaker points; bad jokes that make me cringe-chuckle do only that. Puns are high risk, high reward.

This is my first attempt at a paradigm, and so it is hardly exhaustive. Feel free to ask questions before and after the round, and never hesitate to email me: thomasvanbibber@hotmail.com