Minha Jutt ParadigmLast changed 4/2 3:20P CDT
I debated at Blue Valley North in high school and at UMKC in college. I’ve been an assistant coach at BVN for three years now, led a lab last summer, and have judged about 50 debates on this topic. I don't have much of an ideological preference, and will evaluate all arguments. Here are some thoughts I have:
Evidence quality, comparative impact calc, and technical proficiency are important regardless of your arguments’ content. I dislike embedded clash.
Email chain: minhajutt1 @ gmail
Impact turning DAs/advantages is fine but you still have to do impact calc and evidence comparison for the turn, else the debate becomes difficult to objectively judge.
Responding to terrible internal links with impact defense seems less strategic to me than beating the internal link with alt causes/etc.
Conditionality is good, but the neg has to say judge kick is an option. Most cheating counterplans are fine if you can beat the aff on theory.
Impact calc still matters in T debates! Have defense to the other side’s standards, and explain why your offense outweighs/turns theirs. Be sure your interpretation resolves the offense you extend.
Your standards should be specific and impacted – list arguments their interpretation excludes and why they are good, explain which affirmatives their interpretation justifies and why including them in the topic is bad.
Everything I’ve said about topicality applies here. I also think the aff typically has to win that debating the resolution is bad and that good debates would occur under their model to beat framework. Negatives need defense to aff impact turns to topic education and fairness. Fairness is an impact, but you need warrants explaining why it is.
You can win that critical affs shouldn’t be allowed perms with nuanced, impacted standards like you would in a standard theory debate
Each link should have an impact. Critiques of plan focus/consequentialism seem more strategic to me than critiques with causal links, but I'll vote for any argument if you win it. Winning framework lets you determine the threshold for the negative to disprove the aff. Explain why your interpretation provides the best model for debate and compare their offense to yours. Explain why you should still win under their interpretation. ROB arguments are arbitrary and usually deployed to avoid clash – do impact framing instead.