Fenner,+Joe

Hello all, I just finished debating for four years of varsity policy for Nevada Union and now I am a Stanford freshman. I was the 2n for Nevada Union's A team for the last two years. I debated on the transportation infrastructure topic through the surveillance topic. I got to a couple bid rounds and made a finals appearance at DDI. I read mostly kritikal arguments although I am fine with any type of debate and I default policy maker unless I am told otherwise. I am not debating in college and am also not familiar with this years resolution. General Things:  An argument is a claim and a warrant. Please warrant your claims. Please time your own speeches. 9 minute 1NC's make me sad. I don't count prep for flashing but don't go overboard. Slow down on theory and analytics.  Don't be an asshole. People don't like that. I am fine with a good amount of sass though. Specific Arguments: K Affs: I have read mostly non-plan text affs for the past couple years and I enjoy this type of debate. I do believe that these affs should have a good justification of why they are not defending a plan text. I am not biased for or against T arguments against K affs. K's: I enjoy K debate. Please don't just assume that everyone is on the same page if you make vacuous postmodern claims. Explain the story of your argument just like you would on any other type of argument. T: I like T debate and went for T in a pretty decent amount of my 2nr's. I will probably default to competing interpretations but am fine with voting on reasonability Framework: I'm good for framework - see the k aff section. DA's and CP's: these are arguments. I will vote on them. Do Impact calc work on DA's and solvency explanations on CP's. Theory: I will vote on theory arguments. Make sure you clash with the other teams theory arguments instead of just reading your 15 point condo block. Voters are claims. Claims need warrants. It will be very hard to convince me that the statement "they dropped condo that's a voter, moving on to the case flow" is a reason you should win a debate. Feel free to contact me at either jfenner@stanford.edu for questions about this paradigm or judging.