Reinan,+Kaitlyn

I debated for Apple Valley for four years and coached at St. Louis Park for one. Unless you do something insanely offensive like run a racist case, if you win the round, I will vote for you. Some things I will not do: make links for you, weigh for you (I don't know if genocide or slavery is worse unless you give me some standard by which to judge degrees of badness), extend warrants/impacts if you forgot. I am ok with speed (but please be intelligible) and non-standard case positions/structures. However, there are some things you can do to avoid irritating me and possibly earn more speaker points: 1. Make responsive arguments. Seriously. Just because your opponent said a buzzword like "terrorism" doesn't mean there aren't unique nuances to their argument. I understand that you put a lot of time into that expando, but if you run the same non-applicable case turn on everyone, I am annoyed. 2. Make reasonable theory arguments. By that I mean that theory for its own sake because your opponent has the bad luck to affirm the resolution or because their hairdo oppresses you is (usually) stupid. I will vote for dumb theory if you win it but I will be angry. Obviously, there are cases when theory is justified, and that's fine. 3. Be intelligent. 4. It's generally more fun to listen to interesting arguments than the same ones everyone else is running. This is not to say that stock arguments can't be run well. 5. Positional debate is much more clear, interesting, and easier to evaluate (which means I won't be forced to intervene) than just making 4,000 different arguments and hoping one is dropped. 6. While I like to consider myself intelligent, I am a genetics major. I don't have a philosophy degree. If you are running something extremely confusing, I don't care if it's a wonderful argument or if it has a trendy name like Derrida on it, I can't vote for it if I don't get it, even if your opponent does. Just please clarify if your author uses confusing rhetoric, or consider not running something that can't be made clear in the short time you have to talk. 7. DON'T BE MEAN. You will get a 20. 8. A kritik should have an alternative. This is common sense, right?

In general, you're probably best off debating how you usually debate, as long as how you usually debate involves making intelligent arguments. Like I said, I am willing to vote for anything. I am also more than willing to answer more specific questions before the round if I happen to be judging you.