Spomer,+Andrew


 * Debated as a 2A at Greenhill from 2009-2013**
 * Coach at Montgomery Bell Academy 2013-2014**

Here is a little bit about me as a debater and a lover for background: I read policy affs all four years (three taking into account my bout of illiteracy half way through my sophomore year) and went for politics or impact turns and case with an occasional process counterplan on the neg. For the better part of both my junior and senior year I read affs that were questionably topical and questionably real. However, I put a lot of work and research into all aspects of these false creations. Therefore, my tendency is to reward research and tech over truth. My ideal debate to judge would contain extremely well thought out and researched strategies regardless of what that may be. I am convinced that the ability to research is the most important skill debaters acquire. That’s why almost every theory debate I ever had was impacted with research skills. Anything that is extensively researched will be rewarded with a smile, good speaker points, and a mood ring that doesn’t change colors whether it is a performance affirmative or a topicality debate. The following thoughts are merely my preferences and predilections. Almost any argument can be convincingly won if debated and researched well.

I almost always took politics in the 1NR but I really don’t think the typical Barry O’s political capital disad makes much sense anymore. Pointing out flaws in evidence is often better than reading a piece yourself. Yees. A well-developed case debate is the best way to get good speaker points from me. Good impact turns are… good. I believe it is difficult to win that a generic process counterplan is theoretically legitimate against a reasonably competent affirmative push-back (see research good paragraph above), but not impossible by any means if you are a savvy theory debater. I went for international fiat bad every time I debated an international actor counterplan my senior year with the counter-interpretation “request counterplans solve your offense” and opportunity cost good. But then again it was the transportation topic. Contextualizing theory to the topic is crucial. Conditionality is really silly. As long as it doesn’t get out of hand (3 is probs fine amirite?) I’d prefer not to hear that word in rebuttals. If the negative team is clobbering the affirmative team on a well-researched strategy and the 2nr says, “they will only go for condo because they have no other options. Don’t vote on it.” I won’t. Sometimes it’s better to die a noble death, 2A’s. A perfect 2AR on condo probably deserves a 28. I am not very well versed on most critical literature, but if it is well explained and contextualized to the aff I’ll enjoy it. I think most affirmative teams are awful at debating framework and should lose on it more often. I love great topicality debates with a lot of evidence and extensive comparison between the two different potential topics. Case lists are important. “Limits” are not. I have no idea why “doubling the size of a topic” is inherently bad. Explain. Reasonability is similarly meaningless absent extensive explanation. As the wise Ben Packer once stated, “__reasonability implies that if the difference in quality of the two potential interpretations of the topic is outweighed by the substance crowd-out caused by topicality debates, then one should not vote on topicality__.” Let that simmer… that means that topicality debates can, in fact, be won by the affirmative without “offense” because the substance crowd-out aspect of reasonability is offense. While I have some performance issues (mainly in bed) if it is well explained like anything I am fine with it. I really don’t like generic framework arguments on either side. However, I do enjoy very good and nuanced framework debates. I do prefer that unconventional affirmatives are at least related to the topic and show signs of in depth research. Be funny, nice, clear, and timely. Know your arguments, particularly in cross-examination. Look like you’re having fun, even if you have to fake it. Offense-Defense – I went for offense defense bad a fair amount against disads without uniqueness (namely word PICs). Prep time stops when the jump drive is in the hands of the opposing team. If someone steals prep or is cutting cards, just shout it out.
 * Disadvantages**
 * Case**
 * Counterplans/CP theory**
 * Kritiks**
 * Topicality**
 * Performance**
 * Speaker Points**
 * Miscellaneous**