Sperger,+John

I debated for La Salle College High School in PA and graduated in 2008, and I am currently coaching at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. At heart I'm an old school debater who prefers real world cases, with real world advantages. I like case debate and disads with specific links. I mainly think that politics disads and generic kritiks are intellectually bankrupt. Multiple scenarios of extinction or nuclear war do not impress me. In fact, if there is an unreasonable impact or scenario in the round, I will cap your speaker points at 28 because you and I both know your reasoning isn't deserving of more than a 3/5. Don't bother reading a CP if you don't have a predictive solvency advocate, a 1AC doing such a thing would be laughed out of the room. I prefer a slower debate, but God knows I won't get it. I'm enjoy theory but hate blippy shells. I think inherency is the most important issue in debate. Unfortunately it is also the most ignored. For the record, arguments consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If yours happen to be missing of the aforementioned qualities, I reserve the right to disregard it, especially if it is patently stupid. That being said, my preferences never seem to matter to anyone anyway. But a few things that really grind my gears:

-Consult Counterplans

- Foucault

-nuclear war/extinction scenarios

Good luck.

Works cited Tj McCarrick's Judging Preferences http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCarrick,+TJ