3 year of policy debate at Chandler High School 

Frosh policy debater University of Pittsburgh 

30 second overview

I'm a 2A/1N. Most of my debate career has been going for race arguments or Nietzsche. I'm also vaguely familiar with some po-mo, high theory args as well. that being said a good cp/da debate or clash debate is always refreshing. read whatever you are comfortable with and i will evaluate it. 

Post Blake Updates-My RFDs will be blunt and savage  If you don't like it, tough. 

Don't read psychoanalysis unless you know what you're  talking about  

Dont extend 13 links in your 2NR

Speaker Points**

Everyone starts at a 28.5 and goes up or down from there. A large portion of speaker points is dependent on a combination of ethos, pathos, and argument making. If you include the forgotten art of line by line, good analytics, and know what you're talking about You will be rewarded will speaker points and probably a ballot. They're also put into perspective by your speaker position. A useless 1N probably won't get above a 29.

Opinion on the topic

LD-I'm don't have one

Policy- I love the Chinese

K Affs (traditional and otherwise)

I have read a k aff every year that I have debated. When done right I love these debates. Have a tangential relationship to the topic. If you can change little to nothing of the aff I will be very sympathetic to framework. Using case to answer arguments and always referring to the aff and the 1AC will put you in a great position. Please defend something in the 1AC. take a stance. Being wishy washy in cx and being noncommittal will hurt your speaks and make me sympathetic to the other team. This doesn’t mean you need a plan text, just an idea that the neg can contest. 

Framework

Prove that the aff isn’t the core of the topic, can be read on another topic, or isn't an aff position and you will probably win the debate. An aff that isn't near the topic shouldn't be read but you have to prove that to me to vote on it. Fairness isn't an impact. It is, however, an internal link to education. Reading framework does not give you a pass to answering case and not linking to a disad isn’t offense. The aff should critique their method of debate and have DAs to their style of debate and these should be impacted out. 

Topicality

These debates usually don’t amount to anything but can be effective time eschews. That being said, I am very sympathetic to T when read against really small, obscure, unpredictable affs. Explain what allowing their aff does and why it shouldn't be read and you'll be in good shape. 

Case

Reading generics on case probably isn’t useful or productive and won't get you anywhere. Making analytics on case, taking quotes from 1AC cards and making them into arguments is enjoyable and will be rewarded if used effectively. 

Basically, know what you're talking about and make arguments and you'll be ahead of the game.

disads are ok

**jokes about the Pitt debate team or its coaching staff will be rewarded with .1 speaks (.5 max)

Background:

I did LD for a small high school in SC and policy at Vanderbilt ('15). I had some reasonable success my senior year through clearing at various tournaments and winding up at the NDT. I was a 2A for the vast majority of my rounds.

I judge probably 1-2 tournaments a year and am not actively involved in the activity otherwise, so I have zero idea what new acronyms/trends/drama has emerged recently. This probably can help you for two reasons: 1. I have no prior on "rep", so repping out is a nonissue 2. I will not lose any sleep from voting on a particularly uncouth argument

Big Picture- 2018 Update:

The longer I'm out of debate the less I care about what arguments you make. Whatever position I may have had on the "ideal" round is based on pre-2015 data which may no longer hold true. I encourage you to read whatever argument you're most comfortable with. As long as you can justify what you say/do, I am theoretically okay with voting on it.

Full disclosure- I read exclusively plan-based policy arguments on the aff and was about 50/50 on policy vs. K on the neg, so I might have a slight bias towards "traditional" arguments, but I wouldn't say its dramatic enough for you to alter your strategy.

In general, the more you adhere to the belief that debate is a game and that arguments are just tools, the more likely you should pref me. If you instead feel that debate serves some other primary purpose, you'll probably have to do some work on framework explaining it.

I generally reward strategic risk taking with high speaks, even if you don't necessarily win.

Everything else (updated 2015):

Evidence

I am probably far more concerned about evidence quality than the average, I’d imagine. I took debate really seriously and value hard work over anything else. If you can demonstrate a good comprehension of your (or your opponents’) evidence and just all-around topic knowledge, it could really help you out. I won’t read every card after the round, but there’s definitely a threshold for how much spin you can get away with that isn’t grounded in what your cards actually say. Powertagging cards is way too common and is a pretty bad practice.

Also, please for the love of God stop reading terrible impact cards. You know the ones (Khalilzad 95, Diamond 95, Strait Times 2K, etc…). All of these are highly outdated and lacking in warrants. Especially in the era of free camp files and open-source, there really isn’t much of an excuse anymore.

Counterplans

Advantage CPs are severely underutilized. 99% of aff advantages are not intrinsic to the plan, so doing it through a non-topical way is a pretty easy way to go. Teams should also bring back uniqueness CPs and 2NC CPs.

Conditionality- I don’t understand why 2 conditional advocacies is the magic number to equalize the playing field. I think if you win condo good, then you probably get as many as you want. However, if they contradict, then I think they are probably bad. Reading a neolib K and privatization CP simultaneously is so much worse than 6 conditional advantage CPs. Showing how making an argument on one flow can be conceded to gain offense on another is a pretty easy way to show me that the neg is cheating.

Other CP Theory- I err neg on almost everything else, but barely. I won’t tank your speaks for reading delay, consult, etc. Debate’s a game, do what you want if you can defend it. Similarly, I think 2ARs need to be more willing to just go for theory as a reason to reject the CP. Both in the cases of the aforementioned CPs, but even with agent or process CPs as well. Even though I think those are probably good, 2Ns are oftentimes pretty terrible at the debating them, so take advantage of the almost inevitable under-coverage in the 2NR. I also have a soft spot for really old-school theory args like no neg fiat and topical CPs bad. I thought those were fairly fun to debate.

Judge-kicking for the most part seems far too interventionist for me. If 2AR goes for CP links to the DA or some external offense, then the neg is stuck with the CP.

Disads

Zero-risk is real. There’s a 1% risk of almost anything happening, so I can be persuaded the risk of the DA is so low I should just round down. The same goes for aff advantages

I did a lot of politics work and we went for it a lot, but I think the DA is outrageously over-relied on.

If you win a time-frame distinction, then I am extremely persuaded by DA turns case.

Kritiks

If you like “old-school” Ks like Nietzsche, security, biopower, etc. I’m probably great for you. These were pretty much the only types of Ks I went for when I debated. Although the link to the aff isn’t great, I understand them and think the aff definitely needs to defend everything they say, even on such an epistemological level.

If your first thought when your opponent breaks a new CTBT aff is “gee-whiz, we can finally read these nuclear policy links to our Bataille K!”, I am probably not a great judge for you. The fact that I’m not even sure what the nuclear policy link to Bataille actually is probably indicates my lack of knowledge/interest on the subject.

If you go for a K, pull out all the tricks out-tech the other team. If that means going for framework so I don’t weigh the aff, so be it.

Non-Traditional Debate

If your definition of a “critical aff” is one that defends a topical plan text with structural violence or other non-standard policy advantages, I’m a great judge for you. I love these debates.

Other than that, my main gripe with K affs is the fairness question. I think it's *probably* good for the neg to be able to read the Topic DA against an aff. What this means is that the aff may not need to have a "plan" per se and might not actually have to defend a US policy, but if the aff makes an argument in the topic area of marijuana legalization, for example, the negative should probably get a DA about why legalization is bad and a competitive alternative for why non-legalization options are better. If your aff wants to critique this question and can do a solid job on framework, I'm probably good for it.

I also think affs have a high burden to prove that they actually do something. I understand that the 1AC speech act might be a good thing, but why does that need to be tied to a ballot? Voting neg doesn’t mean that the 1AC disappears from everyone’s memory. I am more than willing to vote neg on presumption here if the aff doesn’t do an adequate job of proving that winning is key. If your answer to this is that “we need to win so our argument gets more exposure”, I'm probably not your guy.

If you want to win with a non-topical aff in front of me, it will 100% be because you out-debated the other team and are just better on the technical aspects of the flow. I am not persuaded by any pathos-based claims about your qualms with the debate community or your personal experiences. If your default 2AR includes a prewritten two-minute overview, I’m probably not the best judge for you. I am also thoroughly unpersuaded by claims that minorities can’t participate in traditional policy debate or that minorities can’t defend the state. If you do not understand why this argument in front of a brown judge who debated many rounds with a black partner is offensive, you probably shouldn’t pref me.


Misc. Things

Be nice—I understand debate can get heated and being aggressive in CX can be useful versus an uncooperative opponent, but there’s zero reason to scream, insult your opponent, or be rude in general.

Please stop using vacuous debate phrases like “cold-conceded” or “Pepsi challenge”. To paraphrase Nick Ryan, I might drop your speaks by a full point for the phrase “cold-conceded”, but I’ll add it back if you can explain the difference between cold, hot, and regular conceded.

I studied economics in college and worked in finance, so I think I have a decent understanding of economic arguments. I would kill for a good, technical econ impact debate.

My favorite argument of all time is “courts shield the link”.

My favorite judge was Hays Watson.


email me with questions: arbilgi@gmail.com

Email: michaeldavidh5@gmail.com

Current Affiliation: None

Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): I’ve judged for several different schools. I coached and debated for Lincoln Park HS.

Debate Experience: Three years high school debate experience, attended summer institutes at Emory, Northwestern and Dartmouth. I have been a debate coach for one year. I currently judge tournaments off and on and won’t know topic intimately.

DISADVANTAGES: I enjoy politics DA. Every DA needs to tell a solid link story (incl. Internal Link), generic links being less convincing.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: More persuaded by arguments of education than fairness. Team usually needs to prove in-round abuse or loss ground for me to vote on fairness. I find reasonability counter-standards to often be convincing. Teams must commit significant time to T or theory arguments in rebuttals for it to become a voting issue.

COUNTER PLANS: If decent theory arguments are made, I inclined to vote down PICs and Consult CPs. I’m not a fan of Conditional/Dispositional debates and rarely vote down a team because of it. I tend to find CPs without a spelled out plan text abusive.

KRITQUES: Links and internal links need to be clear. I prefer the alternatives to be thoroughly discussed. If K lacks an alternative then I need to know the role of the ballot. Framework and “Role of the Ballot” needs to always be competitive (e.g., should not simply be “vote against the plan”).

KRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I am open to K Affirmitives, but the more radical they are, the more Affirmitive must define their interpretation of policy debate. Affirmitive must have prepared response for what the Negative can potentially run against the case.

MISCELLENEOUS: I’m a bit old-school in preferring to see debaters standing up, and looking at the judge during cross-x. Tag team is allowed, but partner of debater being questioned should not dominant the responses. Please be nice and respectful in asking/giving evidence, referring to the other team and conducting C-X, otherwise I can deduct speaker points. If I need to read cards/evidence as a judge then the debaters are doing something wrong.

Email: minnalkunnan@gmail.com

I debated for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Rutgers University under Policy Debate, APDA and BP formats. I have judged BAUDL tournaments in the past and currently judge/coach for Gabrielino High School.

1. I generally don't prefer any one style of debate over another so please feel free to debate however you like. Just make it clear what my role as the judge is in the round and what my vote means.

2. Please attempt to be "normal". Debate seems to encourage anti-social and fringe behaviors that I am increasingly intolerant of. Technical analysis and argumentation is fine, but I often find some rhetorical framing and "truth" or at least belief in one's own arguments are important.

3. Please do not assume that I am familiar with the literature you are reading. I have a general sensibility of the evidence we have chosen to use in debate but I am unlikely to be well versed in your specific authors.

4. If you are going to go for theory in the round please be very specific and clear about what abuse occurred and why it creates a bad debate. I generally do not enjoy debates where either side is attempting to win using a frivolous theory argument.

5. If there are a variety of impacts in a round please provide me some way to compare them. Provide me a metric or framework for weighing different impact claims and prove to me that yours is more important.