Rafferty,+Shawn

Coach at Manhattan High School: 13 Years Coach at Jenks High School: 3 Years

I don't believe in judge adaption, I will judge you on whatever arguments you run. Although, I am more policy oriented judge, and debate is game. But even if you end up with me as a non-policy debater, run what you normally do, I will vote on whatever you say as long as you explain it well.

Go fast, but at the beginning of speeches slow down so I can get used to your spreading voice.

DA: Favorite argument, make sure you do good impact calc on why the DA turns and OW case. I love Politics.

T: Not my favorite argument, but I'm willing to punish someone that is untopical. I usually default to Competing Interpretations

CP: I like them. They need to compete with the aff. Not a fan of process CPs.

K: If you can show my why the argument prevents aff solvency or OW/Turns the aff I will vote on it. If I don't understand the argument at the end of the round, I will not vote on it. I am not familiar with many High Theory arguments, but if you explain it well, I will vote on it.

K Affs: Clearly articulate the method of the aff. I am willing to vote for them over FW if you do good analysis of the Impacts of K aff vs the FW argument.

FW vs the K aff: The neg has to articulate why the aff is untopical and why the Impacts to FW OW the Impacts to the K aff. I usually default to fairness over weighing the K aff unless you clearly state why I should evaluate it otherwise.