Fink,+Ryan

Former assistant LD coach at The Harker School and private coach to various independent debaters. I have coached several top 10 nationally ranked debaters including champions at TOC, NDCA, Berkeley, Harvard, etc.

I am now about two years removed from the activity which suggests I may not be as good at flowing as I used to be (I never was good) and I am certainly not up to date on the topics or the trends in the activity. I suspect, though, that the trends are just more into K land in which case see section below on Ks.

-Comparing worlds -Speaks based on strategy not speaking ability -Tricks won't work -Leeway on 1ar extensions -If neg defends squo presume neg, if neg defends alt/cp presume aff -Shorter rounds with little hiccups get higher speaker points -I will default to my intuitions if forced to by a lack of clarity/comparison on the part of the competitors -Include me in flashing or email chains: ryanfink94@gmail.com
 * General Stuff **

**Theory:** -The more frivolous the theory is the less likely I am to vote on it. What counts as frivolous us based on my reasonable intuition. If you read ridiculous theory and it's barely answered I probably will not disregard it. The more competently it's answered the less likely I will vote for it -Neutral on RVIs -Default competing interps and drop debater -Fairness & education are voters -Shenanigan semantic theory tricks likely will not work

**Framework/Philosophy:** -Policy-making good, philosophy bad -Will judge phil at your own risk -Comparing worlds over truth testing

**Critical Arguments:** -Neutral disposition towards K arguments. I understand their function just fine and find them to be quite silly but whatever. -Not familiar with most lit bases, don't assume I know what authors are talking about -Heavy bias on aff topicality, if you want to win aff doesn't need to be topical you better do it well