Teehan,+Ryan

Ryan Teehan Delbarton School '14 The University of Chicago '18

I debate for Delbarton School for four year, primarily on the national circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year.


 * Update for Glenbrooks '15**: I haven't judged a round since last year, so the same suggestion about spreading that I posted before Ridge applies.

Update for Ridge: I haven't judged a round since NSD, so keep that in mind when spreading. Start off at 70% and then build up.

**Short version:** If an argument is presented to me I will attempt to evaluate it as objectively as possible. However, I will not attempt to lie and claim that I am completely tab. I can not control how my presuppositions and personal opinions will manipulate how I see what occurs in round. Those who attempt to adapt however will be rewarded with higher speaks and a more favorable RFD. Weigh, explain argument interactions, and know what you're running.

**K:** Ks were my favorite arguments in debate, and I ran them for most of my senior year/the end of my junior year. I am decently familiar with many of the common Kritiks (Anthro, Cap, Security, Wilderson (and other iterations of CRT/Anti-blackness/Afropessimism), Deleuze, etc) but I can't promise to know all the jargon so it is best if you explain your arguments well. As with anything, know what you're running. You will probably not be happy with the RFD or speaks if you read a K that you have no knowledge about. Ks should have some form of role of a ballot/judge/framework so I understand why I am voting for you. Performance arguments are fine but a reason to vote for you should be articulated in the first speech. I don't care if your K aff is strictly topical, but it should be related to the topic area or go "in the direction of the topic". That is not to say that you can't convince me otherwise in round. I prefer Ks with specific links to the aff/topic to generic Ks that could have been copied and pasted from a policy backfile. The more specific your evidence the happier I will be. **Theory:** I will default to reasonability and drop the argument but I am persuaded otherwise. "I meets" and "You violate" type arguments are terminal defense. Counter interps are not a voting issue unless an RVI is won in one way or another. I don't care if your theory argument is in a shell but internal links to voters should be explicit. If you win reasonability without a metric for what that means I will assume you just have to prove that there is no in round abuse. Meta theory is fine. I did not run theory extensively during my time in debate, so I might not be the best judge for theory-heavy debates. I really don't like frivolous theory and I might be crying inside if you read it. I have voted and will vote for theory against the K, but I tend to think that most of the theory arguments against Ks are silly.
 * Policy/ Larp/ Util/ etc:** I didn't do this type of debate extensively in high school, so take that as you will. If the aff reads a plan I will assume that the neg is defending the status quo unless the NC contains a counter plan(s) or states otherwise. Perms are a test of competition unless stated otherwise. I have a low threshold on extending conceded arguments but would like to hear the author name at least to make it easier for me to flow. There is always a risk of offense so if a utilitarian framework is won I will not not evaluate presumption unless an argument is explicitly made for why utilitarianism specifically triggers presumption.


 * Topicality:** I will default that T is a voting issue and evaluated through competing interps. If you read reasons why T is a reason to drop the argument I will drop your entire AC unless you specify exactly what I should do.

**Tricks****:** Tricks rounds are sometimes fun to watch. If you are not prepared to adapt your strategy against a K, particularly if it deals with identity, then you probably shouldn't pref me high. Be respectful. **General**: Slow down for author names, tags, and short spikes/other arguments you want me to flow. **Miscellaneous:** -Don't make debate hostile for anyone in the room -Racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia, islamaphobia, and antisemitism, to name a few, are things you should avoid at all costs - I don't care if you sit or stand - I don't mind if you ask me questions but be polite. - I dislike it when experienced debaters run frivolous theory on younger debaters. If I think you are doing so then your speaks will suffer. - If you are funny and/or entertaining your speaker points will increase. - please show up on time. -Be strategic -Pause before and after author names and slow down for tags/analytics Also look at:
 * Framework:** I like good framework debate. Be able to explain your argument coherently and try to keep misuse of the literature to a minimum. Evidence/arguments/interpretations that I haven't heard before will make me happy.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Niemi%2C+Rebar