Boucher,+Jacob

Hello Friends,

A little background on myself; I gathered one bid to the TOC my senior year in high school, and saw elims at most major tournaments. I did 4 years of debate in high school for Minneapolis South, and I am currently on the debate team for the University of Minnesota. As a debater I was very privileged and managed to attend many national tournaments and local tournaments in Minnesota. I qualified to the NFL's national tournament for 3 years so I am very familiar with all kinds of debate, however that being said its very important that you understand I am very much more policy oriented when it comes to debate styling and argumentation. I tend to believe the best arguments are those that make the most sense and best truth claims.

My favorite positions are wipeout, schopenhauer and good ole fashion case debate.

**__Topicality: __** Now most people would tell you ASPEC is a non-starter however I am a firm believer that if you read it someone needs to answer it. I will gladly vote on topicality as long as it is well articulated and explained very clearly. I will not intervene if an aff is blantently non-topical it is up to you to prove it is/isn't so be prepared please. If you are going to read an AFF that doesn't defend a plan text you are going to have to keep me very much entertained as I generally get very upset with critical arguments that aren't explained well, but that's more of a framing question. I'm more biased to the AFF on T debates due to my debate career so if you go for T you need to be able to do a few things, prove your interp is better for the debate, prove abuse in and out of round potentially, and of course you need to be able to win the standards level of the debate,


 * __Theory__: ** Theory is the same as topicality, I will evaluate ALMOST any theory argument you throw out there, a few things to note however I usually do not fill a ballot out on theory. Traditionally when you win a theory argument in front of me I will do one of two things: 1. I will either give you full access to what you are claiming (i.e. reading condo bad as the AFF, I will reject the argument meaning you no longer have access to whatever conditionaly K or CP you read. Meaning you will not win the debate on condo, but rather the position. Which might result in a win for you soooooo.) Or 2. I will not give you access to whatever you are claiming (i.e. reading condo good as the NEG, I will allow you to keep your position in the round.)

**__Critical Arguments: __** Please be sure you can explain what you are reading to me. If this means you needs to slow down then slow down, I know a lot about Schopenhauer, Kappeller, Capitalism, Taoism, and Security K's. That is basically where my knowledge base ends so be please please please be very clear with your argumentation. That being said don't be afraid to Wipeout, read death good, or hell even DADA in the round. I did it a lot in my high school career and am ready for anything you wanna send my way.

**__Framework: __** Frame to me what the ballot means in the context of the debate. You also need to frame how I evaulate the impacts of the debate. As I said above, I will default to a policy framework if not told otherwise.

**__Paperless: __** As a UDL debater I always found it frustrating when teams did not provide viewing computers so you better be sure that if they ask you for one you can produce it. I count flashing as part of your prep time. Prep time ends once the USB is removed from the computer with the speech document on it.

P.S. If you can also through in something that involves asteroids I'll gladly give you extra speaker points. P.P.S. Dawrst is the best piece of evidence ever created P.P.P.S I love me some negative util

I am niether a cup, nor a cake. As such I do not wish to be called a cupcake. Unless of course you are Mike Baxter-Kauf. And the rest of you know who you are.