2017 Blake Finalist Interviews
Note: if you have questions you’d like us to ask, please let us know here, and we’ll ask them during the next set of tourney interviews!
Finalist Interviews
Brianna Aaron (Newark Science BA) defeated Reed Weiler (Lexington RW) to win the John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School! Premier Debate has exclusive interviews with both these debaters!
Reed Weiler (Lexington RW), Finalist
Question: You went 6-0 in prelims and undefeated until finals. How was your tournament experience, and what do you attribute your success to? Reed Weiler: Well, at my first three tournaments of the year, my elim runs ended fairly early, so it’s hard to deny that my experience at Blake was a new one. That being said, I felt quite confident going into the weekend, having done a substantial amount of topic research and practice with my teammates. I tend to really enjoy the research aspect of pre-tournament prep, and it’s something I feel has become slightly undervalued, so I anticipated having a minor edge up on the competition at Blake simply because of how new the topic was for everyone. Overall, the tournament experience was a ton of fun. I am also incredibly grateful for the on-site help I received from my coaches, as it was something that really helped me throughout elim rounds.
Q: Given the strong emphasis you placed on topic prep, what positions did you read? And what did the landscape at Blake look like topic-wise? RW: I ended up sticking with the same aff up until semis, which was a policy-esque case about racial discrimination in plea bargaining. I found this position particularly strategic simply because there was such a strong basis for it in the topic literature, which made cutting cards feel natural. On the neg, I found that the most persuasive approach to answering affirmatives on this topic (so far) was through a variety of different CPs pertaining to different types of CJS reform or modifications to the plea bargaining process. This also reigned true for most other debaters I encountered at Blake, with a couple exceptions. Another interesting position that I anticipate will become increasingly common is the aff that willingly defends clogging courts for the sake of deconstructing/resisting the prison industrial complex.
RW: The simplest way to answer that affirmative would be to impact turn it, as I’m sure most everyone will have their “court clog bad” impacts ready to go at the drop of a hat. However, finding a middle ground between absolute rejection and absolute defense of the CJS is definitely more difficult. I might suggest reading a PIC out of a certain segment of the population or instance of plea bargaining which is uniquely harmful, especially because most of these affirmatives that I’ve encountered don’t really quantify how much of plea bargaining we need to refuse in order to overload the CJS, which would make the “PIC solves” argument that much more convincing. However, I definitely do not feel like I have a perfect grip on the topic by any stretch of the imagination, and am excited to see what new strategies and prep ideas the circuit comes up with in the months to come.
RW: Hm. I think the previous finalist interviews have done a good job of covering some of the bigger issues within the debate community. If I had to add anything, I would remind the community that it is often times important to maintain a distinction between in-round and out-of-round mentality. That’s not to diminish the educational, personal, or liberatory capacity of debate as an activity in any way, but instead to help understand that someone can adopt a fierce, competitive attitude during debates, while still maintaining an overall positive orientation towards other debaters in real life. I think this is a huge part of what makes debate so special, as the round itself can serve as a platform for incredibly valuable discussions and deliberation over important issues, often times divisive ones, yet the community is still able to maintain a level of support and general respect for each other that extends beyond the span of a 45-minute round. Blake was a reminder to me of how much I personally value this activity, if not merely for the sake of opening my eyes to a variety of perspectives different from my own, but also for the connections and friendships I’ve been able to form as a result of participating in such an engaging and meaningful forum.
Q: Thanks for the interview! Any shout-outs or thank-yous you’d like to make?
RW: I definitely have to thank my coaches first; Jack and Adam were both hugely helpful and supportive throughout the weekend, in addition to being generally fun to hang out with. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention the great and honorable Sheryl Kaczmarek for her unwavering devotion to Lexington Debate. I had a blast at the tournament spending time with other debaters as well (too many to name in one post), which reminded me that debate tournaments are way more fun if you take the time to actually talk and interact with all of kind and awesome individuals around you. I’m looking forward to finishing the season off strong, and anticipate enjoying every moment of it.
Author’s Note: Reed Weiler found it pressing that the debate community be made aware of “how amazing Brockhampton’s new album is.”
Brianna Aaron (Newark Science BA), Champion
Question: 6-0 in prelims, dropping only one ballot the entire tournament. How was your experience? What did you expect going in?Brianna Aaron: Well, I actually really enjoy the Blake invitational. It’s one of my favorite tournaments on the year for a variety of reasons like the fact that it offers so much diversity, everything’s housed in the hotel, the people are welcoming, etc. This is the third year in a row in which I’ve attended the tournament so I expected a similar atmosphere and I appreciated that. Debate wise? I think I expected Affs to be either K affs or very generic ones at least on the first day. As I researched the topic lit too, I realized that the topic was quite small so I knew the arguments people presented on the first tournament of the topic wouldn’t be too diverse or nuanced on the first day.
Q: How did you pursue the new JanFeb topic? How will you focus prep over the break?
BA: Since the topic was so new, I didn’t want to complicate my research too much. I wanted a nice Aff that told a simple story so I made sure to make something along those lines. I’ve found that Aff generation on this topic is a lot easier than Neg generation too. It was harder for my coach Alston and I to come up with new stock ideas on this topic in regards to the Neg. This break, I’ll probably focus on looking at more possible Neg strategies while, at the same time, reading new literature that I want to explore.
Q: Any new literature in particular, or just in general?
BA: I think just in general. As of now, I haven’t really found my focal point in literature and, even if I don’t find my own, it’s always good to read other people’s lit just so that you’re one step ahead or on the same lines as them.
Q: Reed mentioned a lot of debates focusing on CJS reform. Did you notice a similar trend?
BA: Yes, CJS reform was definitely a thing at Blake. Many people spoke on whether prisons should abolished, had a variety of different CPs against affs, and also spoke on the trial v plea bargaining side of the topic. I think reform and whether or not it’s good or bad is a major part of the topic.
BA: I had debates against really LARPy people at Blake which I liked. For instance, my debate against Lexington’s Reed Weiler was pretty fun since I’ve always appreciated Reed’s tenacity for efficiency and his skill set at argument generation. Debating people like him and others helped me to improve a lot. The judges after my rounds also gave me really helpful RFDs. Like I said Blake prides itself on diversity, so I appreciate that there was a diverse amount of thoughts on how I can improve at the tournament.
Q: Do you have any issues you’d like to discuss or expand on?
BA: Also, funnily enough, I attended a diversity conference at Blake that discussed debate and how to make it more inclusive. One point that was touched upon not only at the conference but in a round my teammate had against someone was the idea of people’s fears with talking with Newark. I’ve realized that a lot of people are probably scared of engaging in debates that relate to someone’s identity and people have even raised concerns like that at the conference. I just hope in the future people aren’t as frightful of doing that. I know that it can be very daunting but, like my coach always tells me, my team attacks arguments, not individuals. Plus, I’m an academic nerd so I would always love having conversations with people older and younger on philosophy. People shouldn’t be scared to ask us questions or debate us on it. The most interesting debate rounds I’ve had were with LARPy or Kritikal kids to be quite honest.
Q: Thanks so much for your time! Any shout-outs you’d like to make?
BA: I want to thank a lot of people who put in the time to help coach me at the tournament. I’d like to thank Jonathon Alston and Sunhee Simon (my main coaches) for the ideas offered. I would also like to thank Devane Murphy because, even though he isn’t my coach, it sure doesn’t feel like that with all the help he gives me. I’d also like to thank Dr. Curry and Dr. Stephanie Rivera for helping us understand more nuanced literature.
Huge shout out to Shah Bano, a sophomore that broke even at Blake even though she typically does policy! Congrats to University’s Ryan for getting his first bid and to my teammate, Osmane, for getting his third.
Thanks to Brianna and Reed for sharing their perspectives! If you want your questions answered, be sure to let us know here!
