Oleynik,+Daniel

Oleynik, Daniel 2015 Daniel.Oleynik97@gmail.com High School debater, College debater, Frequently judge 33 Tabula Rasa
 * Judge Name **
 * High School Graduation Year **
 * Judge Email **
 * How would you describe your Policy Debate experience? **
 * How many rounds have you judged on this year's topic? **
 * What is the best descriptor of your judging style for policy debate? **
 * Judge Preferences **
 * ** Rate of Delivery ** Fast
 * ** Quality of Arguments **Well Developed
 * **Topicality** Vote on it often
 * ** Counterplans ** Acceptable
 * ** Generic Disadvantages **Acceptable
 * **Conditional Negative Positions** Acceptable
 * **Debate Theory Arguments** Acceptable
 * ** Kritik Arguments **Acceptable
 * Please indicate your overall judging paradigm. **

Being AFF Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong.

Kritiks Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks. These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.

Notes for Aff Read a perm Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff. The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg. No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you. Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.

Disads

On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see.

1. They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis 2. They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work. 3. They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis. Be the third debater.

CPs I’ll listen to all CPs – just make sure to develop your arguments.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive Topicality I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch. If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.

Being AFF

Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about

I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR.

Kritiks

Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there.

Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks.

Notes for Aff

Read a perm

The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg

Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg.

No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you.

Disads

I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them.

Explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.

While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them.

Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.

CPs

Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them.

Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive.

Topicality

I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch.

If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.

If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.