Koshak,+Jacob

I debated 4 years in high school and was very successful on local circuit. I went to a few national one's, did pretty well, but I was restricted on the ability to go to many. I've competed off and on in the college circuit with NPDA, NFA, and Policy, had fun and success too.
 * Background**

Speed and clarity are two separate things. I can understand and follow speed but if you are unclear or start jumbling your words together then we have a problem. I will give one warning and then simply flow what I can hear. Also, if you spread then I cannot guarantee that I will hear every single thing that you read. This is especially true for underviews, analytics, theory spikes/ preempts on case.
 * Speed**

Probably my favorite kind of debate. I love hearing anything that is critical and am quite familiar with a number of philosophers and arguments that are run on the circuit, and some that are not. I love authors such as Baudrillard, DNG, Heidegger, Freire, Giroux, Sloterdijk, Bataille, Marx. If you run anything that is critical then please have a coherent link, a decent impact, some good f/w, and an alternative that provides some solvency. Throwing in a role of the ballot would be nice as well.
 * K Debate**

I did Policy in HS and College. I'm familiar with good, old fashion policy debate. If you wanna role play as the fascist state then I will gladly go with you on that magical (and miserable) journey.
 * Policy Args**

I am extremely tired of hearing round after round of theory debates that were, ultimately, unnecessary for the debate. I am not opposed to voting on theory, whenever there is actual abuse within the round. I am of the opinion that frivolous theory is detrimental for debate and does nothing to educate individuals within the round, and I am very much supportive of critical ways to engage theory, ie "theory is fascist". These frivolous interps include, but are not limited to: //"AFC"// //"Aff must defend Util"//, //"Neg must run a CP",// //"Aff plan text cannot be "//, etc. If you are a debater that runs theory even if there is no abuse, you probably shouldn't pref me. If you don't know the difference between running theory for the sake of theory and running it to check real abuse, then you probably shouldn't pref me.
 * Theory**

The best way to persuade me, regarding theory, is to tailor the impacts of theory to Education (care more about education and truly believe that fairness is a nonsense voter). Doing a good job showing how the violation results in a detrimental affect on Education is a good way to make my decision easier, especially if you are going to sell me on the theory shell.

If you run theory simply to run it, and it is in the preliminary rounds, you may very well pick up my ballot but will get low speaks, the highest being a 27. If it is in out-rounds and you attempt to run theory for strat purposes I will default reasonability. To be clear, your lack of desire to do the work necessary to engage with a position is not my problem. The whole point of this activity is to educate people and to make them more aware about issues in the real world. Strategically oriented Theory doesn't do that.

There are almost no arguments that I find unacceptable, unless it is something that is morally reprehensible such as "role of the ballot is to endorse racism" (Why in God's name would you ever read this?)
 * Weird/ Unacceptable Arguments**


 * Extensions**

I have a tendency to give the Aff leniency on extensions, due to the rapid pace of debate and the time crunch of the 1AR. Extensions, for me, are as follows:

1. Where the card/arg is 2. What the argument/card is 3. How the argument/card is winning you the round

Referencing cards and expounding upon them, ie "cross apply Heidegger 1, he says x", would be sufficient as an extension. As a general principle, I'm pretty lenient on extensions and, as long as you make clear that you are winning the arg, or if it's dropped, then that's fine for me. Showing how it matters in round is also nice. Make the implications for me, I would much rather you do the arguing than me.

I tend to average a 28.5 speaks. I give speaks based on strategic decisions or based on how well you present the arguments and if you do good weighing and analysis. Do all that and you'll get a 29 for sure, maybe even a 30. As a side note, if you are debating an opponent and you know that you are going to win, ie debating against a novice or a first-timer, don't be an ass. You know what I'm talking about, so I won't go too much on this, but if you insist on being an ass to someone new in the activity I will insist on tanking your speaks.
 * Speaks**

If there is something that is potentially harmful for the student, reading narratives/ imagery that is particularly explicit, then you should probably ask if everyone is ok with the performance. Trigger warnings should probably be more on a check of those performative aspects of the debate and to ensure that they are not too much for the participants. This is supposed to be an activity that is inclusive so lets keep it that way. In my mind, you don't need a trigger warning for the following situation:
 * Trigger Warnings**

//- Aff reads a statistic about how suicide rate is at "x"// //- Neg says that they should have read trigger warning because they had a statistic regarding suicide//

In my mind, this is not appropriate for trigger warning arguments.


 * __Miscellaneous (Stolen from my younger brother and former students paradigm, because I think they are good and I'm lazy)__**
 * I don't think skep is morally reprehensible, I think that the argument has been bastardized in the debate community and, as it stands, would not justify racism/sexism etc.
 * I have no preference when it comes to in round composure. If you want to sit you can, if you want to take your shoes off, sure, or your tie off, fine. As long as no one else in the room is uncomfortable, I'm perfectly okay with it.
 * You should have something to give your opponent during round for them to read off of. I don't care if you flash the case, e-mail it, print it out, or write it by hand, there should be something for your opponent to look off of.
 * No eating or drinking in CX time. That's super rude and it wastes time and I don't like it. You can eat or drink at any other point in the round.
 * I'm fine with flex-prep and I will try to pay attention during it but I can't promise I will so you should probably try to get concessions during CX time.
 * I hate blippy spikes and arguments. I can't flow them well and if I don't flow them they don't exist. You should not run this kind of argumentation in front of me. Seriously. I will give you such low speaks and you will probably lose because you tried to extend a blippy spike I had no idea you even read.
 * I'm fine with micro-political positions and performances. Just give me a reason to consider them (aka Role of the Ballot, Role of the Judge).
 * I give speaks based on strategy. I start at a 28 and you move up or down depending on how you approached clash in the round and the strategies you go for.
 * Have fun and be substantive. I don't really care on what level the substance exists. Be courteous and don't make me feel uncomfortable with your treatment of each other and everything will be pretty good.


 * Overall, I think that is a performance that is crafted by the debaters. I am not one to constrict your strategy with my interpretations of how debate ought to function. I will accept and listen to any arguments and, as long as there is a coherent Role of the Ballot or Standard (some kind of weighing metric) that is clearly linked to in some way, I will vote for you. I do not intervene nor do I care where you come from or what school you're from, just debate how you want (maybe not with theory...).**