Marianetti,+Jadon

Jadon Marianetti - Sr @ University of West Georgia. Debated at Leland HS San Jose, CA For me debate is generally a game whose rules and contents are to be decided by the debaters. I don’t have particular argument preferences but put a large emphasis on warrants, quality of evidence and strategic deployment. I default to the offense-defense policy maker paradigm, unless told otherwise. T - I think affirmatives should be resolutionally grounded. T is a debate over competing interpretations DA’s - This is classic negative strategy and it’s pleasant to watch if executed properly. I’m sympathetic to affirmatives who debate dumb disads and point out obvious internal link problems analytically. Case – A good case debate demonstrates that both teams have done a lot of in depth research on the topic resulting in clash and education which pleases me. CP’s – I think the neg should have a decent amount of cp ground and use it. I don’t particularly like cp theory debates but understand their necessary. I think affirmatives should use abuse stories to justify a perm. K’s – Kritik debates are fine except when an inexperienced and poorly read debater tries to read advanced philosophy as fast as he/she can without explaining it. Don’t expect that I have read the literature or have prior knowledge to arguments you are making. Theory – I think of theory as a game of competing interpretations. I would prefer not to watch a theory debate but I understand that it’s part of the game. An actual in round abuse story and a nuanced explanation of theory at its fundamental impact level would help make decisions easier. Debate should be fun... Don't be unpleasant... Make me laugh please!