The Soon-To-Be Maverick Policy Debate

"If I prove that X is Y, do I win the round?"

"I'm going to say that X is Y in the next speech."

"So what's the impact?"

"Excuse me. I didn't hear 'nuke war' anywhere in the case."

"What's your framework?"

"I'm going to kill you if you don't run util. OHMAIGAWDITSNOTUTIL. You fucking Kant."

"Why is justice a better value than morality?"

"I am going to waste my time on unimportant things. And so are you."

"How do you define X?"

"I am going to waste my time on unimportant things. And so are you."

"What ground does that give me as (aff/neg)?"

"The order is going to be: T (AC/NC) (NC/AC)."

"What are your voters?"

"I need you to simplify your arguments so that I can make simple rebuttals to them."

"Why must we vote on theory?"

"ihateyouihateyouihateyouihateyouihateyouihateyouihateyouwhytheorywhytheorywhytheorywhytheorystahpfuckyou"

"Does the neg have the burden to prove the opposite side of the resolution true?"

The pairings got messed up, this is a discussion I had with one of the debaters, who I didn't know at all.

Debater: It really sucks that you won't judge me! I spent the past 30 minutes prepping a strategy for you!

Me: Yeah, I guess so.

Debater: I know you come from policy, and that you're cool with Ks. What Ks are your favorite?

Me: I usually prefer straight forward Ks which challenge key assumptions, or present an interesting take on the topic. I'm not a huge fan of recycling Ks through topics.