Johnson,+Laura

I debated for four years at St. Paul Central and am entering my second year of coaching for them.

I am fine with whatever. I went for pretty much exclusively the K in high school, but am interested in whatever you can execute well. As everyone else says, I would rather watch a good debate on an argument I hate than a terrible debate on an argument I love. The exception to this is any patriarchy/racism/homophobia good etc arguments. You will get terrible speaker points and an automatic loss if you go for them. I don’t care if you can think up 12 reasons why it’d be good for the economy–these are offensive arguments that shouldn’t be part of an activity that still struggles significantly with diversity/acceptance.

I have never been a part of or seen something I would consider a “performance” debate, that is, not defending the rez in any way. If you want to do this that’s fine, but please explain why what you are doing is good for the activity and outweighs neg fairness args, etc. If you read the rez and then do other stuff, that’s cool too.

Update/Note: I am frequently teased about being a "prep nazi" and figure I should say something about it. I really dislike when teams steal prep, especially at tournaments with 10 minutes. Please don't write arguments when your partner is giving the order, or say you are done prepping and then ask the other team a bunch of questions about their arguments. It is annoying and I will call you out on it and you will look like a desperado.