Stoulil,+Jake

Jake Stoulil Debated 4-years in high school (3 years policy, 1 year LD) Currently debating at Simpson College (LD)

The circuit I competed on in high school was for the most part lay. There are obviously arguments that I am more familiar with than others but I am not opposed to hearing any arguments. I am not here to change your debate style so just do what you do. The most important thing is to explain your arguments thoroughly and tell me how to judge it. I don't want to intervene in the debate, so tell me why I should prefer your argument.

On the aff side, I am most familiar with the traditional layout of the 1AC (plan text and advantages). However, this does not mean you cannot run a K aff. If you decide to run a K aff, you just need to explain the case thorough and tell me how to weigh it against neg arguments.

On the neg side, clash is very important. The arguments that I am most familiar with are DA's and CP's. However, this does not mean you cannot run K's. Just know that I am not deep on all the literature but I do have a good grip on the "standard" K's. I think that wacky K's can be fun to run and fun to hear, but they need to be articulated well.

I will vote on topicality/theory if the abuse is apparent and the neg proves in-round abuse. I have a hard time voting on potential abuse. I also believe that if the neg team goes for topicality in the 2NR then they need to go all in on it. This means 5 minutes of topicality and show me that the aff team is abusive and they deserve to lose because of this abuse. I also buy into the argument of reasonability. I would much rather listen to a debate about actual issues over topicality.

As for speed, I can handle a little speed but I'm not a fan of spreading to just throw as many arguments as possible out there and see which ones stick. I believe that the purpose of debate is education and that is hurt when debaters just read as fast as possible just to put as many arguments as they can on the flow.