Kremin,Jacob

Jacob Kremin Affiliation: Head Coach at Ogden International School in Chicago, Chicago Debate League Experience: 4 years of high school policy and some college parliamentary debate. 9 years overall experience between judging and debating

-Speed is completely fine with me; however just be clear on the tags and how you want me to flow each peice of evidence (Link, Impact, etc.) -When evaluating arguments make sure you know what your evidence is saying. CX can become pretty abusive if you can't answer your opponents questions over your arguments. convince me of your arguments and make me understand them -I have no predispostions towards a policy or kritikal based debate. set the round up for your own sucess and tell me how to vote.
 * GENERAL:**

-One of my degrees is in philosophy, and thus there is a decent chance that between my debate experience and research in college I have read the literature your K discusses. I was a Kritik-intesive debater during my time competing so I love watching a good debate in this context. Just becauase I understand the information doesn't mean you shouldn't do your part to articulate it to me. I will be very impressed by a debater who simplifies their philosophical arguments. Most times the points of the authors of Kritikal evidence can be said in much simpler terms. -I really like seeing a good link on the K. While many links tend to be fairly generic, I like to see debaters present their criticism in a way where they can truly convince me of a link to a faulty affirmative assumption or bad discourse. I prefer topic oriented kritiks generally, but I will absolutely entertain a criticism of some specific flaw in the affirmatives approach to the round (language, slang, etc). -I think that most alternatives that claim to "do nothing" are often saying much more. Doing nothing is usually the mechanism I am supposed to use as a judge to adopt a specific idealogy or raise awareness to something. Articulate this argument if its there. it makes the alt debate much more convincing. -Finally, a couple of K's I used to go for revolved around the philosophies of Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger, and Cap. I love seeing these debates, but just becasue I used to go for them doesn't mean I have a predisposition to vote on them.
 * KRITIKS:**

I will be honest and say that topicality debates are not my favorite thing in the world; however, I will evaluate these arguments with just as much weight as anything else. As a coach from a smaller school I understand that T is a poweful weapon when resources are limited. When going for T I think it is vital to tell me exactly how the affirmatives discourse is untopical and how it abuses the negative. Standards debates about education can be quite compelling here. It seems that T is usually just a time filling argument until the neg can see what sticks best but if you think you can win on T, then by all means go for it.
 * TOPICALITY:**

These are just a few of my paradigms. I may add more here, however the most important thing you need to know from me is that you are in control of the round. I will vote on almost anything if you prove to me that it is important for me to do so.