Last changed on
Sun March 17, 2024 at 5:23 PM EDT
he/him, freshman at Columbia, debated 4 yrs at Westminster
add me to the chain: brandonyao21@gmail.com
T/L
Please do line by line, flow, and answer arguments in the order presented
Clarity, judge instruction, and not being mean are good
You should probably also do disclosure
Anything below can be reversed if one side is more technically proficient than the other. I will try to intervene as little as possible and remove my opinions from the round as much as possible. Unfortunately, no judge is a blank slate and I try to make my argumentative proclivities as transparent as possible.
If you have any other questions about things that aren't covered here, feel free to ask :)
K stuff
On the Neg
---I don't care what the substance of your argument is, all I care about is that you do line by line and explain how the K interacts with the Aff.
---I'm not going to list literature bases I'm familiar with because that shouldn't change how much you explain stuff.
---I will probably be more likely to vote for a strategy that centers on the alt/links turning the case than a "you link you lose" approach, but the second is possible if there's a big asymmetry in how the debate plays out.
---Framework, I try to resolve this first because it frequently determines how the rest of the debate is evaluated so I will never say "framework was a wash" unless neither team explains what their interpretation means. I don't really have any revolutionary thoughts here. However, I do think if the neg is trying to go for a you link, you lose/don't weigh the plan framework, there needs to be offense other than "caring about rhetoric is good". I've never heard a great reason that an Aff middle ground interpretation along the lines of "reps can be a basis for making the alt competitive but you should still weigh the case" doesn't solve this. Offense along the lines of "policymaking/fiat bad", or really good cards establishing a tradeoff between analyzing policy outcomes and analyzing rhetoric both seem fine.
---Framework for the Aff, the fastest way to lose a framework debate in front of me is to drop a series of the defensive arguments at the bottom of any framework 2nc/1nr.
---Specific impact explanation/how the K interacts with the case is also vital. Saying the word "militarism" or an analogy to the iraq war aren't impacts.
---Going to be honest, in a debate setting, trying to convince me utilitarianism is bad might be an uphill battle given I haven't heard any great alternative ethical frameworks that don't rely on utilitarian justifications. That’s not to say "extinction outweighs" is unbeatable in front of me, i just think I'll be persuaded better by other approaches to mitigating the Affs extinction impact including: answering the case, a plan exclusive framework interpretation, turns case arguments, having your own extinction impact, some sort of risk analysis argument (predictions fail, conjunctive fallacy etc.) a root cause claim (securitization makes threats inevitable etc.).
On the Aff
---The 2AR I am most likely to vote on has a counter interp that defines words in the resolution in an attempt to solve some neg offense (doesn't necessarily mean traditional definitions) or at the very least, a clear vision of what the topic looks like. Establishing a role for the neg beyond "you can read baudrillard" will help you a lot. Fairness is an impact (if the neg takes the time to explain why), clash might be a better one though.
Policy stuff
I care about evidence quality but only insofar as its debated out, i.e If the neg's politics uniqueness cards are far better than the Aff's but only the Aff is doing evidence comparison/spin, I'll probably end up Aff.
Absolute defense/presumption is a thing.
I'll go either way on judge-kick.
I think predictable limits matter a lot and that unpredictable but limiting interpretations don't solve anything. I can be convinced that small differences in card quality/predictability are outweighed by a big limits DA though.
The neg probably needs a counter interpretation in plan text in a vacuum debates.
theory predispositions (none of these are strongly held).
---I find the argument that competition determines legitimacy fairly persuasive. It seems to me that going for theory while conceding the CP competes is analogous to ASPEC or going for T without reading any definitions of words in the resolution.
---For process cps, there is a big difference between CPs that solve by causing the Aff via follow on, and CPs that fiat the plan but said action is conditioned on X. I.e a CP that has Mexico recommend the plan but doesn't fiat anything else is way more competitive/legitimate than a CP that fiats the plan if Mexico agrees.
---Condo debates---I think that debates where the Aff defends 2 condo and the neg defends 3 are kinda silly. The neg should defend conditionality and the Aff should defend dispositionality, unconditionality et cetera.
---Very ambivalent about everything else, ill go either way on condo, process cps, international fiat etc.
