Nails,+Jacob

I debated LD in high school for Starr's Mill high school (GA) and policy in college for Georgia State University. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

__**General**__ 1. Speed: __I want to hear the warrants in your evidence.__ I will call "clear" as many times as is necessary, but your speaks may suffer if it takes more than once for you to adapt.

2. I will ignore any argument that I didn't understand //the first time it was made// even if it becomes clear in rebuttals. I often call for cards after the round, but you won't get any credit for arguments in your evidence that I did not flow in your speech.

3. __I will ignore unwarranted/underdeveloped arguments.__ It seems like a lot of LDers really try to test the limits of what the bare minimum standard for a warranted argument is, especially on theory. I will ignore any argument that is no more developed than "Ground is key to fairness because I need ground to make arguments," (which is no far cry from most theory internal links).

4. I'm not picky about extensions. Explaining the warrant in the extension is probably a good idea but not an absolute necessity, especially if it's conceded. New NR/2AR cross-applications are fine but will be held to a high degree of scrutiny. If the NR is all-in on T, there is no need for the 2AR to explicitly extend substantive offense.

__**Theory/T**__ I think RVIs Good is a winnable argument given the time limits of LD. What sort of arguments "trigger" an RVI depends on the warrants for why RVIs are good.

__Theoretical reasons to prefer/reject an ethical theory are generally pretty terrible arguments__. This includes: Must Concede FW, May Not Concede FW, Util is Unfair, Only Util is Fair, etc. Just substantively defend that your standard is correct. __Many 'role of the ballot' arguments are just theoretically justified frameworks by another name__, and I feel similarly about these.

I'm not a fan of frivolous theory arguments. If the argument only wins rounds because it's so short your opponent misses it or has to waste time on it, you're probably better off skipping it. These arguments often skirt the line of what counts as a warranted argument anyway, and I am perfectly fine disregarding arguments that don't meet the threshold for a warrant.

I agree with competing interpretations in the sense that I think you need comparative offense to win theory, just like any other argument. I don't think that entails "there is always a risk of a violation," "you must have a counter-interp to win theory" or any of the other strange arguments that tend to get grouped under the label "competing interpretations."

__** CPs **__ Not utilized enough in LD.

I lean aff on conditionality in LD, and strongly aff on 2+ conditional worlds.

I don't think solvency advocates are always necessary. If you think you have a clever analytic counterplan, go for it.

Extremely aff leaning vs agent counterplans. These are not real arguments, and the justifications for them are universally terrible.

__**Philosophy**__ Go for it. I'm familiar with most of the LD canon. I like hearing novel arguments that haven't been rehashed on previous topics. Less familiar with continental philosophy.

'Role of the ballot' is an overused buzzword. These are often impact justified frameworks, theoretically justified frameworks, or artificially specific.
 * __Kritiks__**

If the kritik is about rejecting the affirmative's discourse, representations, etc., I don't see how it makes any sense to weigh the case advantages directly against it as they don't operate on the same level.

Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. This goes doubly for "reject" or "vote neg" alts.

I don't think theory necessarily precedes the K or vice versa.

__**Misc**__ If there's an email chain, please add me to it. My email is: jacob**d**nails [at] gmail [dot] com

"We." No.

Please read the full name of your author(s). This should go without saying but apparently doesn't. Single author cards should be cited with the author's full last name (Scheper 6 is not a substitute for Scheper-Hughes 6). Two author cards should include both authors (Sunstein and Vermuele 5, not Sunstein 5). For multi-author cards, cite the main author and add "et al." if you'd rather not read the rest (e.g. Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth 13 OR Brooks et al. 13, rather than Brooks 13). You can't just pick whichever syllable you like most and pronounce that.

I formerly had a line in here about defaulting to an Offense-Defense paradigm. Although I'm not totally sold, I've moved back toward the truth-testing side of things as of late.