Max Wang ParadigmLast changed 4/19 12:51P EDT
St. Mark’s '19
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I'd rather not read evidence to reconstruct a ballot that doesn't reflect the debating on the flow
If I can't explain what I'm voting for, I won't vote for it
An argument consists of a claim and warrant - arguments that become complete later (or blippy 1nc shells/aff advantages that become developed later) are new arguments that merit new answers
Below are some debate things I generally think are true. My biases and preferences become less relevant the more you out execute your opponents.
Debating Planless Affs
I go for topicality in 99% of these debates. You can go for other stuff too. I will very, very heavily lean neg on perm/competition questions.
I start with the presumption that the ballot doesn't do anything besides determine a winner and loser
Fairness is obviously an impact.
Debate is a game and breaking it would be quite bad. Reading a planless aff makes debate really easy for one side. The aff would be better served going for impact turns than trying to take a "reasonability" approach. To be clear, that means saying debating the resolution is bad for XYZ reason, not that unfairness is good.
Topicality v affs that read a plan
I like these debates when they are grounded in evidence with intent to define. A more limited topic isn't always the best thing ever. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
Great. Turns case is helpful. Zero risk is definitely a thing. Analytic presses can defeat most politics disads.
Counterplans that have a specific solvency advocate (or one that's as good as/better than the aff's) can bypass theory questions pretty easily.
PICs out of the plan are good, states is usually fine, and most other stuff (consult, delay, word pics, and miscellaneous process stuff) is probably bad.
I will not kick the counterplan for you unless I'm told to do so explicitly
Specificity is great. I'm pretty familiar with most of the popular literature (cap, security, afropessimism). The more you talk about the 1ac (and preferably the plan), the better. Links should prove the plan is bad, not that the plan is imperfect.
The threshold for winning a sweeping ontological or pessimist theory is high on the side that advances the argument (both as a reason to reject the aff/law and as a reason to reject the topic)