Hintson,+Jamie

Jamie Hintson Wren High School '14 Princeton '18


 * Updated for Princeton Classic '14**:

I'm a freshman at Princeton from Wren HS (SC). I debated for 4 years, mostly on local/regional circuits and NFL. My senior year I qualified to the TOC.

Note: I had limited experience with circuit debate in high school, so don't assume I understand everything you're saying if you're running non-traditional types of argumentation (i.e. non-stock theory shells, Ks, etc). I have no problem with these, but my threshold for clarity for them is going to be higher.


 * Speed**:

I'm not the best at flowing speed; sorry. 250-300 wpm is probably my ideal pace, but it all depends on how clear you are. Go whatever rate you feel comfortable with, and I'll yell clear if I'm not getting most of it down. Slow down for author names, tags, and theory interps, or I'll be very sad :(


 * Ks**:

Not super familiar with a lot of critical literature, so be slow if you're a K debater reading something really dense in front of me. I'll evaluate Ks like anything else.


 * Theory/T**:

Default competing interps, drop the arg, offensive counter-interps need an RVI (with that said, I have a relatively low threshold for granting RVIs). Feel free to contest all of those things. I am unlikely to be sympathetic to arguments that fairness is not a voter. Weighing is crucial. Meta-theory is fun, but clarity is even more crucial with meta-theory. I'm probably inclined to believe disclosure good but I'll evaluate disclosure theory and responses to disclosure theory like I will anything else.


 * Policy**:

Plans, CPs, etc all fine. Somewhat sympathetic to defense on extinction scenarios (most are just really dumb), but that obviously doesn't mean I won't vote on Bostrom or anything like that.


 * Other**:

- Micropol, role of the ballot arguments, performance, narratives, and just about anything else you could think to run are all fine. Traditional LD cases are fine. Framework debate is fine-- be clear, of course, if it's really dense or uncommon. Meta-ethics debates can be fun but be clear. - Being offensive or mean is not fine :( - Weigh early and often!!!!! - Blip spreads make me very upset and I'm sympathetic to arguments about why you should be able to make new responses in later speeches to blown-up blips. - Tricks and skep triggers also make me upset - Things that make me upset could affect speaks. Speaking of speaks, 27-28 = average. - Smart overviews at the start of the 1AR and 2NR will get you a long way. Give me a clear ballot story.


 * TL;DR**: Weigh. Be clear. Write the ballot for me (not literally please). You do you-- debate is most valuable when individuals express themselves in the manner they choose. I'll try not to intervene. There's very little I won't vote on-- don't be offensive and you're probably fine. Make the round fun <3