Last changed on
Sun February 9, 2020 at 10:52 AM PDT
Berkeley '21
Encinitas Independent '17
School conflicts: Green Valley, San Dieguito
Put me on the chain, ericwimsatt@gmail.com
tldr; I'm a Wimsatt. I like Ks more than the others; Do your thing; Explain your thing; everything will be fine.
I was a TOC debater in high school, I stopped debating in college. I study computer science and have been doing research around misinformation for ~2 years. Do what you wish with this information.
Do what you do best, I'd rather watch a good debate than have you try to throw something together to match my paradigm. I've read big far right affs, gone for different Ks, answered Baudrillard with heg good and read weirder philosophers than anything you've heard of. All I ask is that if you do something that's not traditional policy have a good explanation for why I should vote for you.
That being said, as my name may suggest, I do have a slight preference for policy style args. But as long as you explain what's going on I can be a great judge for any kind of argument.
Ks: I've run em. I've argued against em. The links are super important. If I can't find a specific link I probably won't vote for you. I think the alt is often the weakest part of the k. I do find I'm more willing than most judges to give extra weight to the framework portion of the debate (for either team) so long as it's done well
K affs: I've run em. I've argued against em. I don't know the newest framework lingo for either team so please, for everyone's sake, explain what's going on instead of using buzzwords
Theory: I care about impacts to theory arguments a lot. Treat them like any other impact and you'll be fine. If you're A strat is condo bad I'm probably not your guy.
Politics: Love it. Not sure why everyone gives it a section in their paradigm.
Counterplans: I like em. I'll default to not judgekicking, but it won't take much to get me to kick it for you.
I don't judge very often. I want to see some good debates. Please.