Protter,Ryan

__Background:__ I debated for Princeton High School from 2008-2012. I debated PF my freshman year and I debated LD for the rest of my career. I was pretty successful in my senior year (I broke at a bunch of national tournaments, a lot of local tournaments, and went to the Newark Sci Round Robin). I will be an assistant debate coach for Princeton High School starting next fall

__Judging Conflicts:__ Princeton High School

__Overview:__ I’m tabula rasa, meaning that I will try to intervene in your round as little as possible- you have to do the work and show me why you’re winning by the end of the round. I’m cool with speed. I’m cool with theory. K’s are fine if you can explain them. I presume neg unless you tell me otherwise. CX is binding, period.

I will not vote on disclosure theory unless it is a tournament rule, nor will I vote on offensive arguments (Holocaust good, rape good etc). Outside of those, I'll vote on pretty much anything.

Here are my default preferences:

__Speed-__ Go for it. I prefer fast rounds. I did a lot of fast debate my senior year and I can flow most policy rounds so you can go as fast as you want. Not much is worse than listening to someone mumble at 300wpm, so be clear. I’ll yell out clear if you’re unclear or you’re somehow going faster than what I can handle. After a few clears I’ll stop flowing you, lower your speaks and draw a sad face on your ballot.

__Theory-__ I’m fine with it. I’m open to RVI’s (you should win the round if you win your counterinterp or you meet). I like strongly worded counter interpretations. Don’t get into fairness v. education v. jurisdiction unless you want really low speaks. I default to competing interpretations, unless I’m told to go for reasonability. If I have to evaluate reasonability, be prepared to explain what you actually mean by reasonability and how I’m supposed to evaluate what is a “reasonable” vs. an “unreasonable” interp.

__Spikes in the 1AC__- I've noticed that in order to reconcile the structural neg advantages, most aff debaters have started to put lots of spikes at the top of their 1AC's to exclude most stock negative positions. I'm guilty of this, I think its a great tactic, and I really like aff's that can exclude tons of stock neg arguments with spikes. Be sure to differentiate between spikes and warrant each of them.

__Counterplans-__ Run them. Please clearly articulate how your cp is competitive. I really like net benefits but if you want to use mutual exclusivity or whatever else, go for it. I have a low threshold for theory against illegit cp’s, (floating pics, really specific consult cps, multiple condo cp’s, non-textual cps)

__K’s__- Explain them. I'm not well read in critical literature so explanation is a necessity. Be really specific as to where the aff links and how your alt solves, more than just “reject the AC’s (fill in the blank) mindset”

__Metaethics-__ I ran a practical reason metaethic in the vast majority of my rounds senior year and its worked out well, so I’m pretty good with how metaethics function. However, clearly explain to me how your metaethic determines what counts as a warrant. If you want to exclude the other debater with your metaethic, you need to explain why. Simply saying “extend the metaethic, which delinks the warrants from neg case” is insufficient.

__Narratives/ Performance cases-__ Don’t run them in front of me. I really think they have no place in debate and I think they’re a cheap shot. I mean narratives tend to exclude theoretical objections or substantive offense, which forces the neg to run a counter narrative if they want to have any chance at winning. And because most negs don't have counter narratives in their expando, narratives give the aff a tremendous advantage. To counteract this, I have an extremely low threshold for what constitutes a counternarrative. If you make up a topical haiku in prep and read it in the next speech, I’ll vote on it. If you actually have a prewritten counternarrative, I’ll be impressed, you will get very very high speaks and you will have an excellent chance of getting my ballot.

__Other things__
 * I’ll call for evidence after the round if necessary.
 * I’ll disclose and give comments after the round. Don’t argue with me about my decision but feel free to question it.
 * If you have additional questions, feel free to find me after the round
 * Don’t be a douchebag in cx.
 * Humor is always appreciated
 * I don’t care whether you stand, sit or kneel. Also, I don’t care what you wear provided that you wear clothes. It’s your round after all.
 * I’ll try to average a 27.5-28 with speaks. You won’t get below 25 unless you are terrible or you do something offensive.
 * Don't be stupid
 * Most importantly, have fun

-Ryan Protter