McCarrick,+TJ

I debated for four years at La Salle College High School, graduating in 2008. From 2008-2010 I coached at La Salle. I'm unapologetically old school. Speed and extinction scenarios hurt debate. So does refusing to engage the topic. I reserve the right to take notice of the obvious - evidence is not needed for certain claims (sky is blue, etc). That said, I vote on my flow, not my ideology. The latter impacts speaker points, not an Aff/Neg vote. Both sides should have predictive solvency advocates for whatever position they adopt. The strongest affirmatives present a plan that justifies the resolution through unique advantages/harms. The strongest negatives have specific case strategies (especially inherency or some other defense of the status quo) and disadvantages.Offense/Defense is a fallacious form of risk calculus, and I will award 100% take-outs based on defensive arguments. Kritiks that challenge the philosophical underpinnings or methodology of the affirmative or resolution are fair game. I prefer "reject" alternatives to the floating PICs that typically abound. Generic, universal strategies generally signify laziness. All arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. That includes theory arguments. Fair warning: I'm stingy with speaker points, lack a poker face, and really am annoyed by patently silly arguments. While there may not be any absolute Truth, there are such things as good and bad arguments.