Central Texas District Tournament
2020 — US
AJ Garcia Paradigm
I will take whatever is thrown at me. I lean to more to critical forms of debate, but that's not what I will only vote on. I believe that policy debate and role playing have an important place in debate. Saying that do what you are best at if you are better at traditional policy debate do that instead of critical debate and vis versa, I will try my best to comprehend what you are saying.
Debate has evolved into fast reading and card over load, while this has its place I prefer less card dumping and more in depth analysis as the round goes on. Please do not just scream 483729 cards at me in the span of 8 minutes it hurts me ears and my hand cause i gotta flow all that.
The resolution is pretty important and I think teams should find creative ways to work under it, but you do not have to defend the usfg or read a PT. You just better be ready to read some framework as in why you (the aff team) have to take this position.
I prefer to see good internal link analysis if I have no idea what is going on then I will probably not vote on it, tell me a story with good impact calc at the end. Threshold for voting neg is that they have to prove why we have to reject the aff, rather than just a counter methodology or alternative. When it comes down to evaluating arguments I vote for the team that has some sort of framing that tells me the judge what to value in the round.
It is very hard for me to vote on theory, but better have a good violation with even better voters.
some side notes: I prefer email chain but flashing is fine, I do not count flashing as prep (as long as you don't take long to do so) Don't be mean in round it makes you look like a ass-hat have respect for your opponent and act professional in round. My name is Aaron I also go by AJ
If you have any other questions about my paradigms here is my email: email@example.com
Trey Gutierrez Paradigm
Hendrickson High School '19
Trinity University '23
Email Chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
2N/1A - This will mainly frame how I evaluate theoretical questions regarding counterplan legitimacy, but I still am willing to listen to a good ol' theory throwdown in the 2AR. I probably won't be the happiest to judge that debate, but if that's the winning 2AR, that's the winning 2AR.
- Debate should be an activity where people have fun, are kind, and don't belittle their opponents - please please please be nice to your opponents. Contrary to the relatively popular belief, being a jerk to your opponents does not help you win debate rounds :0
- Speech times, Cross-ex times, prep time, etc. = rules. What happens in said speeches, excluding interrupting / speaking over the other team's speech, the contents of the speech / who is delivering the speech is up to the debaters. However, unless this is part of your performance, after the first 2 speeches (and again, if it's part of your performance I get it) I will only flow the debater who's giving the speech. For the sake of the activity, I would prefer each debater give their own speeches, but I understand that prompting is allowed, and while you may win the round, it may come at the expense of speaker points.
- Tech > Truth in most instances - I will not listen to and not vote on [insert "-ism"] good, but I will also not immediately punish a 2AC that doesn't answer an un-flashed and unwarranted ASPEC shell in the 1NC that suddenly becomes an argument in the block. This does not mean that every dropped argument is a true argument, because for the argument to become "True" in this case, there must be a claim, backed by grounds and warrants.
- "Soft left" affs, meaning a 3-4 card advantage and ~5:30~ of framing, in my opinion have infiltrated debate, and while I read a lot of them in high school, they're not my favorite. Will I adjudicate a debate with a "soft left" aff in the 1AC fairly? of course. Will I check out when the 1AC reads the Harris and Cohn evidence? of course not. These affs are strategic, yes, but simply reading a 5 minute framing contention to answer a DA isn't sufficient.
Topicality (Against Plan Affs)
- Competing Interpretations versus Reasonability - In a debate where the 2NR and 2AR are equally clashing on this issue, I will most likely default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise. I view reasonability as a defensive argument and a reason why the counter interpretation avoids the worst examples of the negative's impacts, so I ultimately believe that winning reasonability is dependent upon winning the counter interpretation.
- Limits versus Ground - I typically default towards ground in most of these issues, but there is obviously a persuasive argument for each standard controlling the other, so this is ultimately up to the debate.
- Precision versus Debatability - I lean more towards debatability, however I think that this part of the topicality debate is extremely dependent upon the reasonability part of the flow. With this being said, I will still reward well-researched topicality interpretations that legally define core terms of art regarding the resolution, and the quality of evidence will make me more likely to lean neg than if your definition is from a dictionary.
- Topic Education versus Fairness - Both are very solid impacts, and I think that smart teams should only go for one of these two in their final rebuttals, but ultimately this issue is 50/50 and I love to see these debates play out.
- Impact Calculus - It is quite often under-utilized in these debates, and it typically leaves judges left comparing some of the things mentioned above. Realizing that you are not winning every argument on the flow (which is hard sometimes, I know), and making "even if" statements are really a critical part of debate overall, but especially topicality debates in terms of weighing terminal impacts against each other. Obviously I may have some pre-determined stances regarding topicality early in my judging career, but impact calculus is the best way to persuade me (and most other judges) into voting for your topicality argument.
- Other Thoughts - I am not the best person in the back of the room if your topicality strategy is to go for a definition of "substantial" but you do you.
Topicality (Against Planless Affs)
- General - As of making this paradigm, all but one 2NR against panless affirmatives in my high school career have been Topicality / Framework, but that does not necessarily mean I will not vote affirmative if the debate is a clear win. "Clear win" is a higher threshold for me because I believe that debates centered around the resolution in which the negative can adequately prepare to engage the affirmative is an inherent good, and while I am not as polarized as others, it is definitely an uphill battle to get me to vote aff in these debates.
- The counter interpretation is really where my problems with teams who read planless affs begin to form, I will have a hard time explaining to the neg team how the counter interpretation culminates in a good model of debate where topic education and procedural fairness are preserved, unless of course your strategy is to just impact turn everything, which will make my ballot harder to win. I also have trouble determining how exactly the counter interpretation solves a lot of the offense that these teams go for - does the counter interpretation still allow teams like Greenhill, GBN, St. Marks, etc. to read policy affs? if it does, how does it solve any "debate bad" / "Fiat bad" offense? If it does not allow teams to read policy affs for the sake of preserving uniqueness for the impact turns, you will have an even rougher time winning the debate.
- For the neg, go for whatever standards you are comfortable with, I'm fine with anything, just be prepared for impact turns. Procedural Fairness is the best terminal impact to go for, but also one that neg teams often have trouble answering the question of "Why is Procedural Fairness a terminal impact?" I think that the preservation of the activity is in and of itself the impact of procedural fairness, but if you're more comfortable going for it as an internal link to education, you do you.
- I definitely have more thought about this, and if you have anything specific just ask me before the debate or talk to me about it whenever, I love discussions over framework / topicality.
- If your strategy is a case specific counterplan that is dependent on re-cutting the internal links or (in a perfect world) solvency advocates of the 1AC, then I am your perfect judge. I will reward specific research done by negative teams and debaters who deploy these counterplans effectively in the round with higher speaker points.
- Sufficiency framing seems to just be a buzzword that 2N's love saying in their overviews, but doesn't really get explained all too much after that, and I will be more persuaded by a 1AR that makes actual arguments in response to this as opposed to a claim without any warrants. However, I do think that a negative team that explains to me what part of the aff they don't solve (unless your counterplan is just that good) and doing thorough impact calculus in relation to the net benefit will be in a better position than the aff team in this case.
- Conditionality - It's good. But, if the neg takes advantage of this I will listen to conditionality bad arguments (taking advantage = up to the debaters - most likely it will have to be more than 3-4 with a mixture of conditional frameworks). Every other theoretical objections to counterplans based on what type of counterplan they've read (process, agent, etc.) are reasons to reject the argument. I can be persuaded but it will be extremely difficult unless the negative has just messed up.
- Judge Kick - I'll do it in basically every instance unless the aff team is winning an offensive reason why I should not, I believe that conditionality good is a reason why the status quo is a logical policy option, and in a debate where the 1AR says judge kick bad but fails to extend conditionality bad I will have a hard time being persuaded by 2AR judge kick bad arguments.
- Links are a sliding scale, not yes/no - but, that does not mean that if the counterplan only links 40% to the net benefit but the plan is 50% I automatically vote neg on the DA outweighs, because there's no possible way to quantify that difference in terms of the link, which probably also means there isn't a good threshold for the link on the net benefit anyways. I think that aff teams can use this argument to go for perm shields the link type arguments if not just going for the presumption ballot in the form of CP links to the net benefit with a combo of no judge kick. It will be hard to win, but you are probably better off anyways if the 2NR just becomes the DA instead of the CP and DA, so it's worth a shot.
- Interesting side-note - Advantage Counterplans are not like other conditional worlds, and I will not vote on conditionality bad if the neg team reads any number of only advantage counterplans in the 1NC, unless it's just dropped (chat with me before the round if you don't agree, the 2AR is too late to try to persuade me on this one)
- They're great, and just like counterplans, the more case specific they are the better your speaks will be and higher your chances are of winning the round.
- I read politics DA's relatively a lot in high school, so i love them - but, that also means I can tell when you've selectively cut parts of a card and these debates are where I see myself reading a lot of evidence. With this being said, I hated having judges that pointed out my horrible uniqueness evidence, so I would prefer affirmative teams to point this out for me so I can be comfortable telling the neg team how bad their evidence is (if that means the 1A has to read through the uniqueness article during the 1NC, so be it). I also think that if a neg team has contrived a politics uniqueness argument from an article that lists like 5 pieces of legislation on congress' docket, the aff team is well suited to recut the neg teams card, because that card is bad.
- 1% risk is a thing. So is 0% risk. I typically find it easy to vote on 1% risk when there is a counterplan involved, so do with that what you will.
- Turns case is crucial, but a thoroughly explained link turns the case is
- They're not what i prefer to judge a debate over, but if the kritik has actual links to the 1AC and are not observations of the structures of society that surround the 1AC, I'm game. I'm most comfortable with Kritiks such as: Security, Capitalism, Settler Colonialism. I don't really like debates about semiotics, the hyper-real, or [Insert any post-modern buzzword that you and I probably don't actually know the definition of]
- Aff teams are best suited to go for framework, no link, and either a permutation or offense against the alternative, but you do you. Permutation do the aff and all non mutually exclusive parts of the alternative is under-utilized and I think that more aff teams should go for this argument because it allows you to permute alternatives that compete off of "Rejecting the 1AC". In that world, the permutation would most likely do the part of the alternative that follows rejecting the 1AC, and that way the aff team actually forces the negative to have offensive reasons for rejecting the 1AC (in the form of links to the plan).
- Plan focus is good, and the aff team should get to weigh their aff, but I can be persuaded that representations should come before the material implications of the 1AC / Plan. With that being said, "Fiat is illusory" is not necessarily my cup of tea, but if the aff team drops it, go for it (aff teams, don't drop it).
- For the neg team to win they must prove a direct link to the mechanism and implementation of the 1AC or its impacts, have an alternative that overcomes those links and solves the impacts of the structures that they have critiqued, otherwise I see kritiks as non-unique observations of the status quo with no possible way to resolve those observations.
Alexis Kostun Paradigm
Debated at Westwood 2008-2011. Debated at Gonzaga 2011-2013. Debated at NDT freshman year. Took time off from school 2013-2017 to work in politics & legal field. Currently finishing undergrad at Gonzaga.
I was a 1a/2n, although I have experience in all speaker positions. I was a policy debater in high school and took a k turn my final year at Gonzaga, so while I've got some experience on both sides of the aisle I have far more experience actually debating the politics disad. That said, I seem to have judged a lot of k on k only debates over the last few years. I'm happy to hear your critical arguments - I just want to remind you that I may not be an expert in whatever your k of choice is. Keep that in mind and rely on well explained and well warranted arguments, not author names and taglines.
Honestly, I would rather hear you debate what you're good at than what you think I want to hear. What I want to hear is a good debate - make the choices most likely to give me that, rather than choosing a specific argument solely because you think I'll like it.
I am not going to call for every card/read the entire speech doc and just vote for whoever had the best cards. I don't think that's the point of this activity. I will only read the cards I think I absolutely have to read in order to make a decision. I am likely to also read any topicality/theory cards. Don't rely on me reading all the cards at the end of a round.
- I tend to have a very high threshold for reasonability arguments on topicality, and will default to competing interps when evaluating the debate unless you tell me what I should do instead. I do quite like topicality debates but this is an area where I will be hyper-technical when looking at the flow, so please keep that in mind.
- I am tired of links of omission. If you aren't talking specifically about the aff, I'm not interested in hearing another regurgitation of a generic k that isn't actually engaging the aff.
- I'm probably naturally inclined to lean towards a perm, so make sure you spend time there that is most fleshed out than repeating "the perm is a link though" several times.
Generally, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that the neg doesn't get to be conditional. I wouldn't suggest you sink a ton of time here. I will vote on theory arguments about the specific CP, but I will not vote for one tagline extension - it needs to be invested in just like any other argument. I tend to default to theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless you tell me how you would prefer I reconcile those situations.
Mostly importantly - just ask questions if you have them. Have fun!
Sam Lair Paradigm
Yes pls email chain: email@example.com
West High School (SLC West) ‘18
Trinity University ‘22
Tech >> Truth
Evidence quality >> spin (but spin can be important)
Disclosure is good, but new affs are too
Substance > theory
Racism good, genocide good, etc. will never win and will not translate into a speaker award
I'm a big fan of well researched impact turns with good evidence
The only part of this you may actually read. I am willing to vote on K affs but I do have a rather high threshold for beating fw
-I really like line by line, so if that isn’t your thing or you think its racist or whatever, you’re SOL.
-If you make arguments by analogy I will be sad and recommend you get better disads to fw than “the neg is ICE.”
-You need a reason why your aff beats presumption
-Your aff should also relate to the topic as well, otherwise it often devolves into a neat FYI
-One of my favorite arguments in debate. If done well it can be a really interesting debate
-I don’t think fairness is an impact but my mind can be changed, skills are better
-Don’t be afraid to dismiss arguments by analogy. You aren’t the police and you probably aren’t building a border wall in this debate round. Anyone who says otherwise is silly.
-Combining fw with presumption can be devastating
*I think a specific k directly engages the aff can be one of the best arguments in debate. That being said, I'm less and less persuaded about blackness being ontological. If you read this, countering historical examples, responding to author indicts, and engaging with aff evidence is essential. Blowing off something like the Gordon card will not get you very far.*
-Link specificity is key – links to the action of the plan > knowledge production > actor > fiat
-Attaching specific impacts and turns case to individual links is excellent and will be rewarded. Links should also be offensive. The argument that the aff isn’t quite as good as they think they are or don’t solve as well as they say is only defense and isn’t compelling.
-The fw debate is important. I am likely not going to be convinced the aff doesn’t get to weigh the case. However, aff arguments on fw do need to be impacted out
-How does kicking the alt interact with the link debate?
-Colossal overviews = :(
- I usually default to offense/defense or competing interps. Reasonability can be won but it doesn’t make a whole ton of sense to me
-I really really enjoy in depth turns case analysis that exceeds “warming collapses the economy.” Historical examples and contextualization to aff internal links WILL be rewarded.
-The more you are winning the cp, the more I will think risk of a link is a thing
-If it’s in the aff evidence, you don’t need a solvency advocate. Solvency advocate theory is silly
-Smart cps out of aff internal links will be rewarded and are highly strategic
-My views on no neg fiat are accurately surmised by Michael Wimsatt: “I wouldn’t vote Aff if I were giving those speeches.”
-I will judge kick if it was in the 2nr
-Specific PICs are good but need to be theoretically defended
-I definitely lean neg on the majority cp theory questions. However, consult, process, delay, and cheeto veto style cp are prolly bad.
-Condo is good: you will have an uphill battle going for it being bad
Arizechukwu Okolo Paradigm
Matthew Reichle Paradigm
email for email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
high school 4 years cx/ld debate at laredo, tx united
college: 3 years policy at the university of texas at san antonio
coaching: 2 years coaching policy at the university of texas at san antonio, coached nine years as director of debate for reagan high school in san antonio, tx. 1.5 years as the director of speech and debate at San Marcos High School, currently the director of speech and debate at James Madison High School in San Antonio.
former writer/ researcher for wisecrack: this does not help you.
***note: please don't call me Matt or Matthew, it is jarring and distracts me. If you must refer to me by name please call me reichle [rike-lee].
(updated sections are marked with a *)
I proclaim, that I am making a concerted effort to be "in the round" at all times from here on out (I suppose this is my jerry maguire manifesto/ mission statement moment) . I understand the amount of time that everyone puts in this activity and I am going to make a serious effort to concentrate as hard as possible on each debate round that I am lucky enough to judge. I am going to approach each round with the same enthusiasm, vigor, and responsibility that I afford members of a writing group--and as such I am going to treat the post round discussion with the same level of respect.
Ultimately debate is about the debaters, not about the ways in which I can inject my spirit back into the debate format. That being said there are a few things that you might want to know about me.
I debated for four years in the mid-to-late nineties in high school and three years at UTSA. I have debated ‘policy’ debates in several different formats. Because I ended my career on the ‘left’ of the debate spectrum is in no way an automatic endorsement for all out wackiness devoid of any content. That is not saying that I don’t enjoy the ‘critical’ turn in debate—quite the opposite, I like nothing better than a debate that effectively joins form in content.
*I prefer explanation and examples in debates, these make sense to me.
*strategy is also something that I reward. I would like to know that you have either thought about your particular strategy in terms of winning the debate round--and I don't mind knowing that you accident-ed your way into a perfect 2nr/ar choice. Either way: the story of the round is important to me and I would like to know how the individual parts of a round fit together (how you understand them). I think this is part of effective communication and it's just helpful for me in case I am missing something. Illumination brought to me (by you) seems to be the crux of getting a decision that is favorable (to you) with me in the back of the room.
*I flow. I may not flow like you, but I keep a flow because my memory isn’t the best and because at some point I was trained to… it just kind of helps me. But I flow in a way that helps me arrange my thoughts and helps me to keep what is said in the debate limited to what is actually spoken by the debaters. I flow the entire round (including as much of the the text of the evidence as I can get) unless I know a piece of evidence that you are reading. That being said… If I can’t understand you (because of lack of clarity) I can’t flow you. also, some differentiation between tag, card, and the next piece of evidence would be great.
Topicality—I don't know why teams don't go for topicality more... it is a viable strategy (when done well in most rounds). In high school I went for T in the 2NR every round. In college I went for T (seriously) no times in the 2NR. While I give Aff’s lenience on reasonability—there is something hot about a block that just rolls with topicality.
*Counterplans/ disads. Sure. Why not. Win net benefits. Answer the perm. Make it competitive. Win your framework (if an alternate framework for evaluation is proposed by the aff). more and more i find the quality of the evidence read for most cp and da's to be shaky at best--not that there isn't great evidence on political capital and the role of popularity in certain aspects of the political economy as it pertains to pending legislation... i just find more and more that this evidence is either written by some rand-o with a blog or is great evidence that is under-hi-lighted. please read good evidence, not evidence that can be written by one of my children on the cartoon network forums section.
Performance/ The K/ the Crazy/Whatever you want to call it: Do what you have to do get your point across. If you need me to do something (see the way I flow) let me know—I will comply willingly. Just warrant your argument somehow. As before, this is in no way a full on endorsement of ridiculousness for the sake of ridiculousness. Win your framework/ impacts and you should have no problem. Please help me out with the role of the ballot. Please.
*theory: I need to flow. I can not flow a theory debate where the shell is read at the speed of a piece of evidence--tag line speed at the fastest for theory, please. Also if you have no differentiation between tag speed and card speed (good for you) but people are only pretending to flow what you are saying.
*paperless issues: prep time is up when the speaker's jump drive is out of their computer/ when you are ready to email your cards (not continue to write blocks as you 'send' your email). Completely understandable if you send the other team a few more cards than you are going to read but please do not jump the other team an entire file or seventy cards in random order. Learn to send evidence to a speech document.
It becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how I view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. It seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates.
While the formula will apply to some extent I would like to say that i am in every way honest when I say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. Do this and I say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. Be the debater that you are, not who you think I want you to be.
That being said; this is who I assume you should be: kind. Be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. There is probably a list that defines shadiness but it follows the same rule as inappropriateness: if you have to ask if something is shady--it is.
have fun. have a nice year.
Haaris Siddiqi Paradigm
Policy Debate for 4 Years at Reagan in San Antonio
2A for 3 years, 2N for 1 year
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Debate is a game. I don't really have predispositions about certain types of arguments being better than others. It just happened that the environment I was taught debate in had a proclivity for k debate.
Tech over truth. That being said, I think spin control is immensely important in close debates, and I prefer clear warranted arguments that trace your evidence to its utility in round over loads of tagline extensions for the purpose of ink.
Making "framing issues" and filtering the rest of your offense through these is probably the most persuasive way to organize your rebuttals. In a perfect round, the first words of your rebuttal should be the top of my RFD.
Kritiks: I read a lot of structural criticisms about race and gender. Around 75% of my 2NR's were settler colonialism or afropessimism. I have exposure to a decent amount of critical literature. However, assuming I have been exposed to your's is not a good idea.
Framing and specificity are the most important parts of k debate. A ROB/ROJ/framing mechanism is essential and offense should be filtered through these. Contextualize links please. Also, I like it when you make turns case arguments in the link debate.
Aff framework against kritiks: I was mostly on the other side of these debates. However, good scenario planning and pluralism arguments are convincing. I generally believe that winning that in some way your simulation/presentation can be good and that in said simulation you can somewhat address the kritiks harms through a perm is the best move. This is necessary to winning you get to weigh the hypothetical implementation of the plan.
K Affs: In a strategic sense, your aff should probably do something and have some proximity to the resolution, but I'll evaluate whatever.
The farther you are from the resolution, the more sympathetic I’ll be to a T/framework argument. I appreciate creative impact turns to framework that pertain to the affirmative over generic indicts to gameplaying or roleplaying.
Against kritiks, explain what the perm does. Just because there are some areas of compatibility between your theories/methods doesn’t mean I will automatically grant you the permutation.
T-USFG against K Affs: Limits are important. Procedural fairness is a good impact. Whether or not it’s a yes/no question is up to the flow.
Often times, TVA's can somewhat address immediate impacts of the affirmative but are antithetical to the method. Should the affirmative point and impact that out, you would be in a tough spot. You should interact with the nuances of the affirmative's literature, particularly when crafting TVA's and answering impact turns.
That being said, filtering the debate through a good TVA will win you the debate.
Performance: There's not a lot of limit to what you can do in front of me. However, there should be a purpose to your performance. If you do not want me to flow certain portions of the debate, tell me.
Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Limits is the best standard. If T isn’t a big portion of the block, I’ll have sympathy for some new 2AR extrapolation.
Counterplans: I like nuanced internal net benefits. It's always better when the CP is both textually and functionally competitive, but it's not necessary. Burden is on the affirmative to prove it is.
I’ll leave it up to the debaters to determine which counterplans are cheating. Slow down on counterplan theory. In the event of an absolute tie, I generally would lean negative in most cases.
Disads: The top of your rebuttals should be impact overviews and turns case arguments.
Compare evidence. Disads generally rely on exaggerated doomsday scenarios and out of context/misquoted evidence. If you are debating against a disad that sounds like what I’m talking about, point it out.
Theory: I was not in a lot of these debates. However, the theory debates I ended up in had to do with conditionality, permutations, PICS, Floating PIKS, and vague alts. Do what you want with that information. Evaluating these debates becomes a question of the flow, so please slow down and make smart analytical arguments.
Remember to be nice and have fun!
Naphtali Tesfaye Paradigm
Yes, I want to be on the email chain.
Your judge as a debater is to explain to me why you deserve to win, tell me what my roll of the ballot should be and I will vote on that decision
I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.
Policy arguments are fine by me.
Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.
Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams.
Debate should be fun, do not be disrespectful to each other and have fun as a whole
If you have any questions, or want some advice, ask me anytime
I debated three years of high school, all varsity policy and I debate now at UTSA, I know the struggles of debating, so I am willing to help