Kennedy,+Alex

10/6/14 update: All still true. Minor addendum: There seems to be a dearth of smart, topical arguments in a lot of the rounds I judge these days. The return of such arguments would be rewarded with good speaks, and probably my increased enthusiasm in voting for you.
 * Alex Kennedy**

8/30/11 I debated for four years at College Prep (Oakland, CA), graduating in 2011. I competed mostly on the national circuit, and qualified for the TOC my junior and senior years. I currently coach Palo Alto High School and attend Stanford University.

I'm ok voting on just about any type of argument as long as it's warranted and its relevance to the ballot is explained. The best way to win my ballot is to be comparative and to prioritize arguments for me. Your arguments on weighing, decision calculus, etc. should write the ballot for my decision. Absent such explanation, I'll have to determine for myself how arguments interact. This comparison should not be entirely new in your last speech; if your argument was blippy/totally unwarranted the first time around, I probably won't buy huge new impacts that crop up in later speeches. That said, I would encourage you to use embedded clash and comparison of multiple arguments to be smart and efficient. Earlier weighing is generally preferable, though I think the aff has a bit more leeway on the quality of early weighing and extensions what with the issues of time skew.

I'm fine with critical arguments, provided they are well explained in terms of the link story and the ballot, and I'll vote on both prefiat and postfiat impacts (with the same requirements for critical args in general). If you're making arguments that appeal to my role or opinion as the judge, you should be extremely clear on how and why I evaluate the round they way you're asking me to.

I'm also fine with theory, though like any other argument it needs to be properly warranted and impacted. I default to a competing interps view of theory, though I'll look to reasonability arguments if they are well-developed and clearly won. If you run bad theory and/or clearly use it as a poor strategic ploy your speaks will definitely suffer.

Please only go as fast as you can be clear. I'm cool with most speeds so long as you are still clear, and I'll let you know once (twice if you're especially bad) if I need you to be clearer. Actually slow down and enunciate for card names, as well as tags and signposting. If you're you reading Deleuze and Guattari or something equivalently dense, you should probably slow down a notch or two for the substance of your case too.

For good speaks, make smart arguments and make them well, employ good strategy, and don't be rude, mean, or offensive. That last bit applies to speeches, CX, prep, and the RFD.

If you've got any other questions just let me know before the round.