Jacobson,Rory

**Update for CPS 2017:**  **I** **haven't** ** coached or judged in a year. I left debate to work on climate policy at a think tank in the East Bay. As a policy analyst, I am very familiar with policy ** **oriented** ** advocacies, however, having studied discourse at UC ** **Berkeley** ** rhetoric department, I am also interested in hearing kritiks or other critical arguments. Basically, I've taken a year break from circuit debate (Ive been volunteering to urban debate leagues), so please give me an opportunity to refresh myself, especially during prelims. **
 * I debated circuit LD for 4 years, then coached for another 3 (at CPS and Lynbrook). **


 * Paradigm: **

My ballot story will be as follows every time: Which framework is won, and who won the most offense back to that framework. The framework may be substantive, critical, or theoretical. Framework, then offense. That's it. (If you want, we can talk about aprioris and pre fiat impacts before the round if you want)

 **Speaks: **

I will see how it goes for the rest of the year, but at meadows I will be giving relatively high speaks (>28.5) if I think you deserve to clear. Humor (seriously, being funny without being offensive will be an easy way to a 30), strategy, and cool argumentation will earn you particularly high speaks.

 **Speed: **

Im pretty comfortable with speed. I am a particular neat flow-er, so as long as you **slow down for AUTHORS AND TAGS,** I will get everything. If this is a major concern, we can definitely talk before the round about specific arguments and appropriate speed. Oh, and slow down on theory, it’s just common courtesy.


 * Theory, Metatheory, etc.: **

Go for it. I don't default to anything, so tell me how to evaluate the arguments. Theory doesn't have to be in the typical A,B,C,D format, but I'm open to arguments as to why it has to be. I'll be more impressed with debaters who win the round without necessarily winning theory (i.e. not running theory, reading it as drop the argument, responding to theory with a couple "I Meets" instead of a counter-interp and an RVI). I am perfectly OK with spikes, mostly because I see their strategic value, however, slow down.

 **RVIs - ** I'm sympathetic towards the RVI, but I won't intervene for one. I'm open to arguments for and against why offensive counter-interps are voting issues in themselves.

 **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Kritiks/Critical Arguments: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">I feel most comfortable with K lit (as opposed to most normative frameworks). I’m pretty well read on most authors and topics, so you can probably go pretty quickly though it (slow down for authors and tags). In all honesty, if you are running an interesting K I will likely be more excited about it than you are. This is not to say I am a “K hack” I will still evaluate it like any other argument. No New Links in the 2n or 1Ar unless theoretically justified.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Presumption/Permissibility/Triggers: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">Go for it. I'm inclined to believe there's a risk of offense for a framework being true, but if you make arguments as to why I should look to presumption, and those arguments are dropped or being won by you, then sure.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Miscellaneous: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">- CX is binding and also very interesting, use it effectively.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">- Quality evidence comparison will impress me.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">- Please come to the round pre-flowed.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">- I prefer debates about the topic or about philosophy. I won't be as happy evaluating a round that is 100% theory, presumption, or some manifestation of the such; my happiness doesn't affect how I evaluate the round.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">IF AT ANY POINT IN THE ROUND YOUR OPPONENT HAS MADE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE (this doesn't just mean racism, sexism, or ableism arguments etc but instead turns to racism, turns to sexism, or other similarly offensive or triggering arguments) pound three times on the desk (this is so you don't feel like you will be stopping the round) and I will stop the round and have a discussion with your opponent about what they have done and will give you a 30 for putting up with it. This also means that I will have to have to agree that what they did was offensive, but this shouldn't be too difficult (my threshold is low, but I wont intervene unless you ask me to because I dont know your limits or personal perspective) . **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 18pt;">* ****<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">Having said that, if you are running a micro politics position and I am somehow still judging you, I will be very empathetic. ** **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">It’s not that I am not willing to vote on the argument; I just don’t find micro politics to be particularly persuasive or strategic. **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">GOOD LUCK! **