Hill-Weld,+Teddy

email chain: hillweld32@gmail.com accessibility: if there is anything that you think I could do to make the round more accessible to you please tell me and I will do my best

I tend to be quick and concise but I can provide lengthy explanations of my decision if that is preferable. I'm open to any and all questions after the round, and I can tolerate postrounding up to a certain point (I take it as a sign you care about the debate, which is important). I have debated (and listened to) some of the fastest debaters in the country, and I'm pretty comfortable flowing them. That being said, you are not the fastest debaters in the country, so unless you have the ability to be just as clear as they are, don't sacrifice your clarity to read 50 cards in your 1AC at a nice high pitched humming sound that no one understands. I'll give you two warnings if you're not being clear. Try to keep your speeches organized, line by line and signposting are much appreciated. I'll do my best to flow the warrants in your cards along with the tag and author, since the most important part is not whatever you power-tagged it as.

Topicality - as a 1N this is the argument I most always take in the block, so I'm always down for a good T debate. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, and you should impact out why your model for evaluating topicality is good. The same goes for the competing interpretations debate; it's not good enough to say that your interpretation has better limits than theirs, I want to know why that's important. Disads - they're cool. I prefer specific links (specific disads are even better) rather than generic ones, and it will also make your life easier. Impact calculus is very important, but you also have to make sure you win the internal link chain to get you to the impact in the first place. I'll default to utilitarianism unless told otherwise but am quite open to other frameworks for evaluating the impact debate. Counterplans - PICs are cool, case-specific CPs are cool, but as a 2A I'm not going to blow off counterplan theory debates. It's important that you're actually competitive and that you're not placing an unfair burden (whatever that means) on the affirmative. Theory - another thing I tend to take in the block. Use theory strategically, and if one team is clearly making the debate unfair and you can impact out why I should actually care about it, that's when you'll win your theory debate. Kritiks - This is the argument I am most familiar with. Do your thing. Explain the link (ideally it's specific or at least articulated in the context of the aff) and impact it out. Even if your alternative is to reject the team I need to know why I should endorse it as a method to combat whatever impact you present. I'm familiar with a lot of K literature, but that doesn't mean I'll be doing any extra work for you. Framework - this is where it gets interesting. I really enjoy K debates but this includes a defense of your framework for the round, whether it's a question of alt solvency or state engagement or whatever, impact it out (you may have noticed I say that a lot). K Affs/Planless Affs - I have experience reading, debating, and judging these types of affirmatives. The same way it is with everything else, explain your argument and why I should care about it. I'm open to critiques of engagement practices, the resolution, the debate community, or whatever else you can come up with. Framework v. K Affs - these debates have become more interesting for me this year. I'll default to competing interpretations, but the same stuff I said about topicality applies here. These debates will most likely include some question about the pedagogical value of the 1AC and I think that a good explanation of why they create better education (or don't) can be extremely strategic for the aff. Oh, and don't forget that there's more than one possible interpretation for the negative to read when it comes to framework. Role of the Ballot - these are impact framing arguments. It's important to answer them, but the 2NR/2AR isn't going to be able to win solely on "they dropped the role of the ballot." You have to win that your impact is more important and should be prioritized in order to tell me what my ballot should do.

*I will actively listen and work hard to develop my understanding of your arguments as the debate progresses regardless of whether or not I am familiar with your style of debating or type of argument.