Maciorowski,+Sierra

** TL;DR: Kritikal is beautiful, call the Point of Order, use impact calculus, good theory boosts speaks, cap isn't great, feminism is life, US- and euro- centric logic is bad, and don't exclude people from the round. I won't shake your hands but I love you still. **

__// Background //__ 4 years of high school parli at Sonoma Academy, NPDA at SRJC (ended ranked 21st nationally), NFA-LD at SRJC, and BP in Europe. I now compete in APDA and BP at Stanford.

//__ Most Important __//
 * Your rebuttals should be almost entirely weighing: impact calculus, warrant comparison, and strategic clarification of the round. Analyze how and why you win.
 * Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate.
 * Collapse hard and well for better speaks.
 * Kritikal is good, kritikal turns are great.
 * I default to probability in impact comparison and competing interpretations on theory. That means your link stories should be specific and I really like theory when it's good.
 * Tagteaming is great-- use it but don't overpower each other.
 * Speed is great but don't exclude.
 * Blipped arguments without impacts are not a path to the ballot.
 * Call the Point of Order.

//__ Theory __//
 * In my short NPDA career I ran some form of theory almost every round. Theory positions are a magical wonderland, but to be so requires a commitment to your standards and clear weighing of yours against your opponents’. Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased-- and well-adapted to the round at hand.
 * On any theory, tell me how and why to evaluate your argument under competing interpretations. No need for articulated abuse-- if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory.

//__ Kritiks __//
 * **General**: Ks are the chillest. If you run one, please make your links as specific as possible--- just saying that I should drop the affirmative team for using a government actor isn't enough unless you specifically explain how their plan's use of a government actor detriments society through its unique support of [insert power structure here].
 * **Familiarity**: I'm decently familiar with the lit for Marx, Butler, Mackinnon, Nietzsche, DNG, slightly familiar with Baudrillard, Feyerabend, threat construction, and afro-pessimism.
 * **Exclusion**: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. If your opponents are racist, sexist, etc. turn that against them.
 * Answers: Weigh your case against the kritik, and do it well. Explain how your advocacy acts as a rhetorical endorsement of a particular methodology, and how that outweighs the detriments of capitalism or whatever. Perm.
 * **Conditionality**: Conditionality is great, collapsed debate is good debate. But I’m still down to hear theory against it, especially in instances of a conditional kritik and theory.
 * **Speed**: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk a Panther Tank charging at your speaker points. I can handle your speed, but if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.
 * **Flow:** I’ll flow through what you tell me to flow through, though if I have to intervene due to lacking impact calculus, I’ll probably grant shadow extensions. Overviews and underviews are good.

__// POOs //__
 * If I stop flowing, glare at you, or raise my eyebrows into the sky, your opponents are being disturbingly new and I’m waiting for you to call it. When in doubt, call it. If and only if the tournament rules tell me to intervene without the POO, I will.

__// Speaker Points //__ Things that will get you higher speaks: > > > > >
 * 1)  Well-applied case, link, and impact turns.
 * 1)  Strategic collapses.
 * 1)  Well-executed criticisms.
 * 1)  Theory with critical (kritikal) components.
 * 1)  Overviews that write the ballot for me.

I actively interrogate my own speaker point decisions to ensure they are not influenced by societal determinations on how a certain gender or identity ought to act, speak, or interact. Be courteous, don’t be offensive, and have clearly warranted link stories with weighable impacts, and you’ll probably get a 27.5/28. Make smart strategic choices, and you'll get closer to 29/29.5.

I love you all but I really have no desire to shake your hands.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Feel free to email me with specific questions at stmaciorowski@stanford.edu or message me on Facebook.