Pearce,+Justin

ADDITION AS OF DAY 1 OF TOC 2012: So apparently I have not been clear with how I feel about theory. When I say something like “I really don’t like theory but see it as a necessary evil,” that doesn’t mean that running severance bad after the aff concedes your defense is okay and it does not mean I will want to vote for you if you run theory like “aff cannot force the neg to check theory violations in c-x” or “Aff cannot say that the neg does not get RVIs” as reasons to outright drop the debater. If you want to run the standard theory shells (NIBs bad, plans bad, aff saying everything is permissible bad, etc.) I will be happy to hear it. If you run something that makes me think “hmm… this theory shell is a bit of a ridiculous reason to give them a win,” you have made an awful strategic choice and I will try my hardest to not vote on these types of shells unless you are absolutely crushing. I will not be very sympathetic to your complaints after the round about my decisions if you thought an ideal NC strat in front of me was running multiple theory shells on very questionably abusive strategies. If you are running theory that you think might be a bit ridiculous, I would feel much more comfortable if it was a reject the argument shell.

I coach New Orleans Jesuit.

There are no arguments that I will inherently reject if you run them. The exception is disclosure theory which, if you run it in front of me, will give a loss and minimum speaks instantly.

Philosophy: I would prefer if you ran philosophical arguments instead of policy-esque arguments in front of me, just because I tend to enjoy them more and am also better at evaluating those rounds. Depending on how dense the philosophy is, you might need to slow down. In terms of more critical philosophy, I tend to think that running it can either go really well or really poorly. If you run a philosophical position and it makes sense, it is interesting, and you understand it, you will be rewarded with speaks. If you make the round messy and it’s clear that you’re running a philosophical position just for the sake of running one in front of me, I will be annoyed.

Theory: I’m not really a fan, but I see it as a necessary evil. “Fairness is not a voter” is not compelling to me and probably a really bad argument, but I’ll listen to it. RVIs are fine if you’re justifying it. Given my distaste for theory, I prefer for there to be a clear and fairly significant abuse, or else I’ll probably buy your opponent’s responses to the shell.

Kritiks/Performatives/Weird Positions: Run them if you want. I prefer that it be interesting and not a “resolution is nonsensical” argument. Case specific links are preferred. The more counter-intuitive your argument is, the more likely I will buy decent responses to it. I am not a fan of positions that are morally repugnant.

Crystallization: I’m going to just say that it’s awesome. If your position is not stock or is complicated, then more crystallization will be required.

Speaks: Average is around a 28. I tend to give 29.5s fairly often as long as you have clear crystallization and are making very smart arguments in the round. Honestly, debate well and you'll probably get at least a 28.5. I don't give 30s.

Arguments that I would prefer you not run in front of me: Plans and policy arguments (I never really understood them well and so I tend to be more prone to make bad decisions with them. Plus I have an inherent bias against in thinking that plans are really stupid and so I think I tend to subconsciously want to not vote for them. Not to say that you can't run them in front of me, just that I would not recommend it), affirming/negating is an omission and thus permissible (a terrible/not true argument. I will absolutely try to find a way to not vote on this argument if I can. If you win on this argument, your speaks will be absolutely awful), topicality (I hate this argument. Regular theory is fine, topicality is stupid. If you run it as a reason to reject the argument, it is 100% fine. If you run it as a voter, I will hate you).