Experience: I did policy debate at New Trier High School and now debate for New

York University as a Sophomore.

Overview: I am fine with anything you want to read. I did strictly policy (CPs/Das/T)
at New Trier and then have leaned more towards Ks at NYU. I have read every K
from Security to DADA. Impacts need to be well extended and weighed and my role
as the judge should be made clear by both team.
Most important thing for me: I love debate. I think the community has its flaws but
is unique in the sense that there arent many places where a bunch of insanely
smart students can come together and discuss anything from Chinese politics to
Deleuze and Guattari. I understand if teams make arguments about the flaws in
debate and more than often I believe they are true. I believe that personalizing and
creating a hostile environment is one of the problems that exists in the debate
community and should be addressed. Debate offers so many valuable skills,
research being one of the most important, and should exist.
Specifics
Framework (read on the neg, you have to read a topical plan): I really enjoy
framework debates. I really go either way on these. For the past two years I have
not defended a stable plan text and understand the merit in that. I also have read
framework on the negative many times and understand that as well. I believe a
good framework debate comes down to well impacted education arguments. I
understand the merit in but the state is bad arguments made by
performance/kritical affs but I dont believe that is enough, especially if the negative
wins a topical version of your plan.
T: I am not that crazy about T but have run it and will vote on it. I believe
competing interpretations are great because the negative can always find a
definition that excludes the aff. Like framework, I believe a good debate comes
down to the educational impact level. Simply extending key to ground isnt
enough. I am not totally sold on just fairness impacts. I believe fairness is just an
internal link to participation and clash but is not an impact within itself. Finally, I
really like affirmatives that address the topic through a tricky wording in the plan
text. This creativity, I believe, is a great skill and leads to creative debate that
negate topic staleness.
DA: I really like DA debates and wish I could have more of them myself. The best DA
debates are ones that come down to the pieces of evidence. As I said above, one of
debates greatness merits is the research and there is nothing better than a DA
debate to show off the amazing research youve done. I think the other really
important part of a DA is explaining the story. Saying that Immigration brings in
more high skilled workers and that is key to heg which is key to preventing nuclear
war isnt really enough.
CPs: I love topic specific, alternative solvency CPs. The affirmative reads a lot of
evidence and more often than not the authors will come up with different solvency
mechanisms. CPs that go off of this are awesome. Advantage CPs are cool too,
especially when they are very specific and the negative can articulate the solvency

on the CP better than the affirmative on their case. I have read Consults CPs,
agents CPs(anything that steals the plan) and I like them but also believe that
they should be germane to the case. Reading Consult NATO against every Aff can
lead to a very stale debate. I like theory on these CPs, especially ones that make
stale education arguments.
Theory: Condo is probably a good thing but if the aff wins the neg is being abusive
with it I will vote on it. CP theory is good (As stated in the CP section). I will listen
to whatever theory you want just make sure it is impacted well.
K: My favorite type of debate and the one I am most familiar with. I have read tons
of Ks and heard even more. If you read a new K in front of me, even if you think it is
stupid, I will consider voting on it and always LOVE HEARING NEW PHILOSOPHIES. I
am most familiar with Nietzsche but dont like it when teams read Nietzsche and
just throw out words like Ubermensch or what not. Please show that you know the
theory of whatever philosopher you are advancing. I will go into some specifics on
each part of the K. The most important thing on a K is making it germane to the aff.
Dont just say they conceded our warming link. It is best when you use examples
from history as to why the aff is just another example of x. I hate Holocaust
references and hate it when Nazism comes into debate. If you have a good point I
will understand but dropping Nazism and Holocaust references is pretty weak.
-Framework: I am open to both sides. Ks can lead to generic debates but the aff has
to be held accountable for assumptions.
-Links: links that are articulated as turns case arguments or separate impacts are
awesome. Shows you really know the philosophers. Use examples as I said above.
-Impacts: Just extended them and do impact calc.
-Perms: The aff has the potential to be abusive here. I believe that the aff should be
held accountable for everything in the 1ac so severing reps arguments hold little
weight with me. If the other team drops it I will vote on it but give me a reason to.
Also, a good perm do both with net benefits to the perm is awesome. If you can
articulate why the net benefits are good and outweigh any risk of the link I will be
very impressed.
-K tricks (serial policy failure, reps first): Love them. Just impact them well and
give examples of how the aff leads to serial policy failure or what not.
Performance: I am very familiar with this style of debate. I have read literature
concerning this area and feel that I have a solid foundation. I also read a structural
violence affirmative for most of last year so I understand the framing questions. I
always love learning new things so if I havent heard your style of argument I will
listen with open ears and will most definitely vote on it.
-Identity Politics: At the top I went in depth about being nice to one another. I think
this applies most here. I believe that framework is a viable strat against teams that
read fem, race, classism and so one. I do believe that engaging in the literature and
the affirmative project is much better. Teams that read identity politics bring an
interesting and unique perspective to the table and should be listened to and
understood. Though this burden does fall on the negative, I believe the affirmative
should do their best to help the negative understand their privilege or how they
contribute to dominate debate structures. Simply saying well you are x[white,
male, privileged] so all your arguments are wrong and bad is not enough and kills

effective debate which is so important. If you can explain how someones identity
brings their argumentation into question I will be a lot happier. I LOVE TEAMS that K
debate structures while simultaneously helping the negative understand what they
are saying (help understand as I know privileged debaters will never truly totally
understand forms of oppression in debate).