Shmikler,+Richard

I coach for Brentwood in LA and a few private individuals as well.

I debated for St. Louis Park in MN for 4 years graduating in 2013. I competed predominantly on the national circuit. I was Champion of Dowling Catholic (Sems bid) Blake (Quarters) and VBT (Octos) and was in finals of both the TOC and Nationals.

I’ll try to be as tab as possible. I think the value of debate comes from the students building the game into whatever they want rather than trying to play to a judge and their emotions. Im willing to vote on anything that is clearly labeled and extended in every speech. This is equally true for contention level, framework, and theory issues but I am very skeptical on most pre-fiat issues. Also, if you run prefiat and ask for me to endorse what I think is good, I probably think its good to endorse norms against running prefiat or calling for judge intervention…

I don’t want to see anything hidden – if its not labeled, I probably wont vote on it, and if for some reason I do, youll get terrible speaks.

A 30 performance for me looks like a well written AC with a sophisticated framework, a strategic spike or theory strategy, and well cut and researched topical evidence. Time allocation should be good, and there should be TONS of weighing and layering.

If you consider intellectual debate about philosophy or theory debates that are actually about pertinent or interesting issues, or strategic moves that show ones understanding of the game on a higher level than you are probably capable of as theory or philosophical “mental masturbation” then you shouldn’t pref me.

Choose well, have fun, victory or death – embody that and you will get high speaks.