Brandon Stras ParadigmLast changed 3/29 4:13P CDT
I'm a crippled, bisexual Jew who wholeheartedly supports American hegemony. Please, show me China War Good, Baudrillard, disads derived from Milton Friedman's smirk, and/or probability-first framing. Refusing to utilize my angry and badly-trimmed eyebrows as a resource is a dumb move. I'm a grumpy and expressive judge, so look at me!
I debate at the University of Michigan as a sophomore with a policymaker that goes by the alias Rand Paul.
College debate has indoctrinated me for over a year, so I have adopted a more truthy mindset. This mindset has an uncomfortable implication: what's flowed on my excel sheet always receives preponderant deference, but that has some limits. Idiotic arguments can be defeated by mere analytics and two-line cards—unless those idiotic arguments have immaculate evidence. Spin's okay, but I read cards as the round goes, and so I often detect bold lies. While perceiving bold lies does not often influence my decision, it makes me even more grumpy and expressive.
Sabes JCC Pre-K '05
Add me to the chain.
In return, I'll email out my flows after the round.
Framework: fairness or bust?
My voting record should reflect something like a 60/40 in favor of topicality.
Truthfully, I think fairness comes first. But kaffs always outweigh on magnitude if granted a causal link!
I don't strongly prefer impact-turning over counter-defining the resolution, but I need to understand the aff offense in the 2AC, not just the 1AR and 2AR. That might mean slowing down and over-explaining arguments. For me, it takes a little more for it to "click."
Seriously, stop defending skills and topic education in front of me. It makes victory less likely. While I am writing an undergraduate thesis on a college debate topic, I do not think that debate gave me the "skills" to make that happen. I just find it fun.
For reference, here's my hierarchy of neg offense: fairness > clash > the garbage.
Clarity over speed—and I mean it.
The floor for clarity is that I can understand the card text while reading along. I have no zero qualms yelping "clear" at you. It's to your advantage, not mine. It helps me piece together your arguments.
My response to the soft-left invasion.
I have about as much agnosticism concerning "existential risks first" as my Judaism (so a lot). I am okay—perhaps even good—for soft left affs. Unfortunately, teams rarely spend the entire contention impact-turning the notion existential risks come first/magnitude outweighs probability, see this or that. Please exclude the throwaway garbage like random Security K cards. In my eyes, the neg could concede them and still win.
That said, I enjoy extinction debates more. Affs do what they gotta do though. ¯\_(-.-)_/¯
I am aff-biased on counterplan theory.
Solvency advocates—pieces of evidence that make a normative judgment about whether a certain actor should take a certain action—often determine counterplan legitimacy. The more case-specific, the more the neg gets to abuse the aff. That's arbitrary, but I can read.
Generic process CPs are stupid. They waste my time, your time—literally the whole debate. I vote on them, but I would rather vote for perm do the counterplan or that it's abusive.
"thIs wAs A nEw Aff"
That doesn't mean you should automatically win. It doesn't warrant why:
• process counterplans would be good;
• object fiat would be good;
• a topicality interpretation should be more persuasive;
I am neg-biased on conditionality, but...
Imho condo is good and probably infinite. Of course, I will still vote on condo bad—mercilessly. This just means, if equally debated, I'd lean neg.
I closely read topicality evidence.
If I employ judge intervention anywhere, I admit that it is evaluating topicality. Because precision is an intoxicating impact, I read every card closely.
I lean towards re-inserting evidence.
However, this comes with a caveat: it is not different from saying "1NC concludes aff—it says blank" without the re-highlighting. I might just read the plain text of cards when contested anyway, so it probably won't make or break a round. Moreover, inserting 150 cards for me to read is not a good strategy. It seems like crying wolf.