Tierney,+Graham

I debated from 2006-2010 for Iowa City West HS. I was coached by Cyndy Woodhouse, and in my senior year, by Ernie Rose. I debated on the national circuit my last two years and qualified to the TOC. I currently attend Carleton College. I coach St. Louis Park High School in Minnesota.

Generic stuff: Theory is fine, speed is fine, I will say clear if I cannot follow you, skepticism/critical arguments are fine but I am not extremely familiar with that literature base and those arguments will need more explanation than generic/stock arguments. I think the most impressive skill in debate is a strategic vision for the round, particularly using arguments on one flow against another. If you can demonstrate that, then you probably won't get below a 29. I used to think that I preferred nuanced frameworks, but really I have a hard time understanding even normal philosophy that I haven't read previously.

More specific stuff: I will likely be fine with whatever style you're most comfortable with. I didn't really have a set way I debated, so I am familiar with different ways in interpreting resolutions.

I do think a standard needs to be justified in the AC and justifications for a non-explicit or non-warranted standard in the 1ar will be regarded as new.

For the following arguments, if you make any arguments I will change my assumptions, but I default to the view: - that the resolution as a statement of truth - that theory is competing interpretations - that theory is drop the debater - that competing interps implies if a competitive and net beneficial counter interp is won, I should vote on that

Particularly on the RVI, I think the arguments for RVIs are much better than the arguments against. I will do my best to objectively evaluate these debates, but given that the RVI debate tends to be just dumps of arguments, if comparison of internal warrants is not done by the debaters I will probably grant the RVI.

Feel free to ask questions about anything specific before the round.