Fennessy,+Kyle

Updated: 5/30/17 Standing Conflicts: Strake Jesuit College Preparatory (TX)

Background: I am a 2016 graduate Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston, TX. I debated LD for four years on the TFA and TOC circuits. I’ve qualified to TFA State three times, clearing to doubles my senior year. I also qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals (where I cleared to Round 8) my senior year. Debated college policy for a bit with UT San Antonio.

__Pref Shortcuts (1 = best):__ LARP/Stock: 1 K: 1 Framework: 1 Theory: 2 Tricks: 4 Generic: 2-3

General: I’m a pretty open book with what arguments I will accept. I’ll vote on almost anything, as long as I’m given a clear reason to do so. That being said, however, don’t be offensive… Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please **do not use derogatory or exclusionary language,** including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks.

Speed: I’m fine with speed. I have a pretty good ear, so I’ll usually be able to catch what you’re saying. I’ll say “clear” three times and deduct 1 speaker point after the three times, but after that I’ll probably just stop flowing. Just be clear. Sometimes it helps to have an email chain going for the round to make absolutely sure, but I won’t require it.

Ks: I read these types of arguments a lot starting from the 2nd half of my junior year in debate. I really enjoy hearing a good K debate. As a debater, I read a lot of ableism, cap, race, biopower, and discourse kritiks. Don’t know so much about high theory stuff like DnG, but I can have a good enough understanding of them to evaluate them in the context of the round. I won’t be impressed if you simply just use cool jargon and name drop the entire round. I’d really prefer to hear well-thought-out, topic-specific links and kritiks that have good strategic value, as opposed to generic state bad links that you can recycle every topic. I’m not really a fan of performances, narratives, and non-topical kritikal positions, but that doesn’t mean I won’t still evaluate them. Lastly, make sure you can explain your alternative to me and your opponent very well; often times, the world of the alternative tends to become very vague and confusing, so it'll help you to articulate clearly exactly how the alternative works.

T/Theory: I have a similar view to my former coach Adam Tomasi… Taken from his paradigm- “It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.” Although, these are my personal opinions on many of the more frivolous theory arguments, I did read a good deal of theory when I was in high school. Check my wiki; I’m certainly alright with theory debates, though it’s just not fun to judge all the time when it gets to the point of 2 new shells in the 1AR. T’s alright. I read some T, answered some T in my day. My soft defaults are competing interps, drop the debater, RVI’s.

Theory vs K: I don’t have a default as to which comes first. You should do that weighing for me in the round and I’ll evaluate it that way. In the event that neither debater does any weighing on that debate, I guess I’d be unhappy and just put the layer with most engagement done by both debaters first.

Framework: I like a good framework debate and was almost exclusively a framework debater for the first two and a half years of my debate career. I know how to evaluate a framework debate and if it’s a good one, I’ll like it. I like to hear good interaction between justifications and comparison of warrants of two different frameworks. I'm starting to hear these debates more and more this year and I have enjoyed them, especially in the instances of the Kant and Virtue Ethics NCs.

Policy Arguments (Plans/CPs/DAs): I read a ton of these arguments during my senior year. As a debater, I read a lot of DAs, such as PTX, Elections, Econ, Race, etc. I really enjoy these debates. If you just make sure links to disads are clearly established, a lot of comparative weighing and impact analysis is done, and CPs are competitive, we’ll be fine. I’d prefer it if your extinction scenario makes some sense and is reasonable. Have some basic semblance of uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. PICs are also cool too, especially if there's a really creative net benefit. I also enjoy really nuanced theory interpretations about the legitimacy of conditional counterplans and PICs, and I enjoy listening to that debate. That being said, I default to condo good because I think it's good, but contradictions are bad.

Tricks: Hate them. I’m not a fan of skep, NIBs, spikes, presumption, and other sketchy things. Proceed with caution because I won’t be a happy camper if you read these arguments in front of me. But I’ll vote on them and won’t deduct speaks for reading them.

Speaks: I evaluate speaks based on quality of argumentation, engagement, and strategy. Higher speaks if I sense that you know a lot about the topic and about the arguments you’re reading. I’ll also probably give higher speaks if I hear a good joke or two, or if you debate with flair. Speaks will also be deducted if y’all are exceptionally sassy and aggressive to each other. Be nice, but confident. Have fun, but be smart.

Disclosure: Disclosing is wonderful. Disclosing full-text is especially wonderful. You should try and do it whenever you can. I will absolutely vote on disclosure theory, but it'll make me more happy when the interp brings in something a little extra like "... if asked prior to the round." Make sure the violation is verifiable in some way; for example, take a screenshot of your computer screen. Also, try not to run disclosure theory as a tactic to one-up someone who is clearly far less experienced than you or someone who has like never heard of a wiki before.

Other: -I default to comparative worlds. Arguments to the contrary can be made, of course. -Flashing and emailing don’t come out of prep time. However, don’t try and put together your speech doc and think you’re not gonna take prep to do so. -Time yourselves. -You should email, flash, or pass pages to your opponent, so they can be able to see your case somehow. -Have fun and be nice.

If this doesn’t give you a good enough idea about my judging style or views on debate, I generally tend to agree with these people- Alberto Tohme, Adam Tomasi, Chris Castillo.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. You can also contact me by email (qjc097@my.utsa.edu) or by Facebook message.