Ronkin,+Jacob

I debated 4 years on the national circuit for University School (FL) and graduated in 2016. I qualified to the TOC my senior year, and lost in the runoff round. I’m currently a freshman at Duke University.

__ Ultimately, I will vote on any argument if won, and all of these views are about starting views that can be won or lost in a debate depending on the arguments made. But, I’ll go over specific issues. __

__** Tl;dr: I’ll vote on anything- explain how arguments function and interact with other arguments for me to vote on them. **__

**REQUIRED- READ THIS**: (Copied from Michael Corder’s paradigm) Give trigger warnings for any argument you find might be potentially harmful to another debater (i.e. arguments about suicide, sexual assault, intimate partner violence). If you are unsure about whether or not your argument is triggering ask anyway, it is better to be safe than sorry. And should you not give a trigger warning for arguments that pass the reasonable bright line for requiring a trigger warning, you will at best get a 26. And, should you not give one and your opponent is triggered you will lose the round with a 26.

**Role of the Ballot(s)**: I assume a truth testing paradigm, i.e. that the aff has to prove the resolution true and the neg has to prove it false, but I will adjudicate the debate by any other paradigm or role of the ballot if it is won. You can do as much or as little as you want with the role of the ballot (I often made it a reason to reject theory), and I think all the arguments in a role of the ballot can interact with other layers as these arguments frame the rest of the debate.

**Theory**: Go for it. I won't drop a shell because I don’t agree with it. I will vote on a shell if won, but be sure to do the necessary comparisons to other shells and make the debate clear.If you want me to vote on theory, then you must provide the necessary parts of a shell and voter otherwise I don’t believe I have the jurisdiction to vote on it. I don’t have any defaults on issues such as drop the arg/debater, reasonability/competing interps, etc, but if neither debater speaks to any of these issues (especially drop the arg/debater), I will have a hard time voting on the shell.

**Framework**: I probably read this most throughout my career. I am fine with any type of framing (value and criterion/role of the ballot/burden structure/etc), but FRAMING IS NECESSARY. I am pretty well versed in most phil, especially analytic phil, but will obviously evaluate other types of arguments just like I would for the arguments I read.

**Tricks**: I read them, and so can you. If you make tricky arguments, I will evaluate them like any other argument, so they have to be won to get my ballot. Be sure to explain how they interact with the other layers of the debate

**K’s**: Go for it. I’m not the most well versed in K lit, but I did read K’s occasionally throughout my senior year, so understand some K lit (mostly identity politics). One preference is that K’s have some framing or framework (it can be a role of the ballot, normative framework, or even the aff framing), just be clear of what the framing is.

**LARPs**: I don’t think I read util at all during my entire senior year (excluding lay debates). I am not the most well versed in util debates, so this is definitely my weak suit in round evaluation. Nevertheless, I’ll do my best based on the arguments presented, so if you make your arguments and explain how they function, you will be fine. Similarly, in these debates specifically, please avoid jargon as much as possible. I know some words but definitely don’t know everything you might go for.

**Traditional** **Debate**: I enjoy it. Honestly, it probably was my favorite type of debate. If you don’t want to debate technically, I will not hold it against you. Values and criterions are great.

**Extensions**: I don’t have the highest threshold for extensions, but I’m not the best flower, so if you explain the warrant quickly, I should be fine. More important than extensions, though, is explaining arguments implications in round. If you explain X card’s implication on the framework debate, I will not disregard it if you

**Speaks**: Basically, I will reward those who make good strategic decisions with good strategic decisions with high speaks and give lower speaks to those who don’t make the best strategic decisions. However, all of the following contribute to good/bad speaks as well. High Speaks for: 1- Clarity 2- Good Strategy 3- Good debates on specific issues- even if it is an issue I’m not as well versed in (like LARP debates) I will reward good engagement with high speaks for both debaters. 4- Efficiency/Weighing 5- Being nice- please do this, especially against novices. I will be harsh with speaks if you are mean to novices in debates or in rounds you will clearly win. 6- Being straightforward- no matter how tricky your arguments are, please tell your opponents what your arguments are. You can read anything from a prioris to unturnable standards and everything in between, but being sketchy and hiding it will just harm your speaks.

Below is a list of people who coached me, so I probably hold similar views to them. I don’t necessarily agree with them on everything, but they did all help shape me as a debater and ultimately my views of debate: Michael Fried Tom Evnen David Branse Grant Reiter