Molitierno,+Michael

I am a policy debate coach at Pittsburgh Central Catholic.

I debated all four years of high school at Pittsburgh Central Catholic - three years on the circuit.

I went to camp at Michigan State before my senior year.

Before coaching at Central, I coached for three years at North Hills High School.

I'm currently a student at the University of Pittsburgh studying Philosophy, Political Science, and History.


 * Paradigm:** Tabla Rasa

I'm pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. I think the debaters should decide what the round is about, not the judge.

(As far as specific preferences) I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. If you aren't being clear I'll let you know. Don't spread your tags if you want me to flow them with any accuracy. Slow down for T and theory stuff - that's alot to write down on the flow and you don't want me to miss those arguments because they can decide rounds.
 * Speed**

I can be sold on either reasonablity or competing interpretations. Impact your T arguments - the standards debate will usually decide how I vote on T. Impact your arguments beyond just "we couldn't possibly be expected to be prepared for their case." That's an argument, buf if your only argument is that it's hard to be neg, I probably won't pick you up on T. I want to hear how the way they violate your T interp affects the round and affects the possible debate that can occur.
 * Topicality**

I like strategic counterplans. You should run them. That said, there are alot of theoretical issues that arise here: I can be sold either way on the legitimacy of topical counterplans - don't hesitate to run one but be able to justify it. Multi-Actor Fiat I can be sold either way. Object Fiat is abusive. PICs can either be strategically brilliant (impact turning part of normal means or runing a d/a on plan action in one of the areas plan affects) or blatantly abusive (consultation cps). Creative perms are good. You should run lots of diverse perms to test the counterplan's competativeness.
 * Counterplans**

I think Disadvantages should generally be held to the same standard as case advantages. Your Internal Links are just as imporant as your impacts. I'll listen to a perm debate on a politics DA. Do impact calc early and often - let me know how I should be weighing the DA against the case.
 * D/As**

I like critical debate. I have alot of experience both in debate and in accademia with criticisms of capitalism and neoliberalism. My concentration the last two years of school has been on Marxian analyses. I'm fairly well versed in Foucauldian analysis and critical IR theories. Other Ks I'm perfectly fine with you running - but you will need to do more explanitory work on them. Fiat bad FW is cool with me. You can sell me either way on Fiat.
 * Kritiks**

If you want me to vote neg on case arguments, I like them (especially Inherency) to have a structure like T. That is, you should have an interp of what the aff needs to do to be , an argument as to why they violate this (the cards and analytics you read), standards as to why this matters, and a voter. Unless you use this structure, I probabably won't pick you up on defensive args.
 * Case**

open is fine
 * Cross-X**

If you're paperless, prep ends when your jump drive is ready to be handed to your opponents. In my mind someone should either be speaking or taking prep at any point in time in the round.
 * Prep Time**