Feinzig,+Josh

Background: I debated for Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, and qualified to the TOC my junior and senior years. I'm currently a freshman at Yale.

General Paradigm: I'm pretty down for whatever you the debaters decide. Explain argument interaction and provide a method to prioritize arguments. All of the following are defaults, and I will change my views as long as you justify why I should. I default to believing that the aff must prove the resolution true, and that the negative must prove it false. I have no reservations when it comes to the use of pre standards arguments, but am very open to theoretical answers to them. Additionally, if you're going to make those sorts of arguments, they better be justified and flowable.

As for theory, make sure you slow down when reading initial shells, and signpost well when responding. I'm not a huge fan, and would prefer for debates to be more philosophical in nature, but if theory seems to be needed, do not hesitate in using it. I default to reasonability. Fairness is a voting issue. My threshold for the 1AR RVI is very low. I'm open to alternative approaches to answering theory.

I'm not that well-versed in critical literature, but am very open to it when used in an interesting and appropriate way. Make sure you go slower and explain arguments to both me and to your opponent.

I'm also not a big fan of performative positions, but will still hear them. If you run them, make sure you articulate why both A) you should win, and B) why your opponent should lose. A does not necessarily imply B.

Basically, run some interesting stuff, be funny, and make it a worthwhile experience for everybody in the room.

Pce yo ;)