Coyle,+Jack

hey, I'm Jack! I'm a sophomore at Berkeley and I debated for four years at La Costa Canyon High School in San Diego. I debated policy for two years and ld for two years. I went to the most national circuit tournaments for ld my senior year, and I cleared at stanford and berkeley. here are some of my thoughts on debate. **theory** - I am very comfortable with theory debates. whether you use theory only as a genuine check on abuse or for frivolous purposes is fine by me. I won't buy arguments that just say drop this shell because it's frivolous. if it's a dumb shell just beat it quickly. i will not drop a shell just because i personally think there's no abuse. warrant your arguments and you will be good. Absent the arguments being made in round, I default **competing interps, drop the debater, RVIs, theory > K, and fairness before education.** but make the arguments anyways, a messy theory debate is no bueno.


 * t -** i think T is a great and undervalued strategy, go for it.


 * kritiks** - i think critical arguments are awesome and make for super interesting debates. good critical debates are honestly some of my favorite debates to judge / listen to. i love when debaters explain how the kritik specifically links into the aff and how it interacts with other layers in the round. big picture overviews are awesome on the K.


 * util** - very comfortable with util debates. please slow down on tags and authors here. i will be impressed if you know the methodologies of your studies well and can press opponents on these factors. good evidence comparison is key. other than that make sure you cover the basics (cp's need a net benefit to the aff (through some disad), solvency advocates are a thing, good empirical studies are awesome.


 * framework -** i debated fw the least in high school, so i'm not super well versed in dense philosophies. i only ever read util, kant, virtue ethics, and non ideal theory in HS. if you have a good understanding of your fw, i'd appreciate a quick explanation of the fw before you begin reading substance. i am more persuaded by line by line responses to fw rather than reading a dump and not explaining how the answers interact with the nuances of the opponents fw. if you are looking for a super dense fw debate i am probably not the best judge for that round. also, i default epistemic confidence, but will evaluate under epistemic modesty if you justify it.


 * tricks** - they're alright, i don't have a ton of experience with tricks, so don't expect to blow through a nailbomb aff and for me to understand your complex burden structure and all the spikes. i'm not impressed if your entire strategy is only tricks from the get go. i don't like when you extend blippy arguments without elaborating how those arguments affect the ballot. explain how the trick works and you will be fine.

2. big picture overviews. i love 1ar and 2nr overviews that break down the round for me. **i want you to tell me how to write my ballot** 3. delineate between tag lines and cards, pause between layers 4. humor, general strategic choices, and interesting/cool arguments will grant you higher speaks **6. if you have an interesting/unique position and run it well, I will probably give you higher speaks**
 * speaks** - i start at a 28.5 and adjust from there. if i think you should clear you will get a 29 or higher 1. don't be evasive or excessively rude in cx, ESPECIALLY if you are debating someone who is less experienced that you. **explaining your arguments to an opponent who may not have heard them before will give you better speaks.**

any questions? coylejack1@berkeley.edu or facebook

i know debate is stressful, but enjoy your time in the activity! if you feel really flustered, just take a deep breath and gather your thoughts. it's really helpful especially when you feel overwhelmed in round! good luck!