Mierzwa+Jakub

Monticello High School (2013) College of Saint Rose (2017)

__ Introduction- __
Hello, my name is Jakub Mierzwa and before you start reading further let me inform you that I will probably not judge as often as I think I will. Honestly, I don't think that writing this will be necessary but I will write one out as a precaution.

__ History- __
I debated Policy at Monticello High School in New York for four years. That being said I had a different style of debate than most New York teams. I was more policy oriented and I would rather debate the effects of global warming and nuclear war than racism and oppression.I have judged only on the novice level before so I don't have much experince judging a round that goes for a kritik that is not security or capitalism. Also I have made it to NCFL both my junior and senior years doing decent enough to lose in bubble rounds.

__ Short Paradigm- __
Go for anything so long that it is not morally repugnant (i.e. Racism is good, rape is justified, drop them because they are an interracial team, etc), or just plain stupid (short list of what I consider to be stupid= Obesity Impacts, Time Cube, Allegory of the Squirrel, Myth of Sysyphus, and Aliens). I enjoy rounds that are fun and make me laugh. I also enjoy rounds that do not make me hate myself for being white (surprise). Evidence comparison is key in any debate, if you cite warrants from cards and compare them to your warrants you will have a positive image in my mind. Cross-x is open unless you are against open cross-x (but hey who is?) also do not dominate your partner's cross-x. Impact comparisons are also really awesome and you should do those everyround. Kritiks are fine as long as they are simple and explained well (I used to debate Capitalism, Security, and Biopower, otherwise I would almost never run a kritik). Finally, if you can keep the round neater than the short paradigm then that would be great.

Meta-Issues and Concerns
So I do have a few pet peeves that all debaters that I will judge have to know
 * 1) Clarity is way more important than speed, if you can spread at a billion words per minute good for you but chances are that you are unclear and I will be really angry if I cannot understand you.
 * 2) Open cross-x is fine but you have to do it, do not let your partner take over and do not take over your partner's cross-x.
 * 3) Play nice, don't be a douche in round it does not make you look better and it does not help speaker points.
 * 4) I will prefer education over fairness in any debate, but if you prove to me that fairness leads to education and thus loss of fairness = loss of education, I will accept that
 * 5) Don't call me judge in round, it really gets annoying when in your rebuttle speeches you say judge at least 5 times in a 10 second period. Call me Jakub or Jake or even Bob just don't call me judge
 * 6) Know your case
 * 7) Enunciate your words, if you are monotoned and spread evenly, chances are that it will be boring and I will fall asleep.
 * 8) I use prep while timing for two reasons 1) it makes you more efficient flashers 2) You can edit while flashing. When the flashdrive leaves the computer is when I stop the timer
 * 9) If a computer crashes or stops working, I will allow you to reboot but the moment its on and we can see your desktop is when the debate has to continue
 * 10) Do the work for me, please. Its imperative to make me decide the round without me having to read your cards and compare warrants. THATS YOUR JOB

Topicality and Theory
Topicality is always a voting issue, even if you are critiquing it you have to prove to me that the abuse that you feel is worse than the abuse that they feel, if that makes any sense then congrats. Topicality has to have interp, violation, standards, and voters. None of that bs that people came up with that it is interp+violation and then a 1 line standard that miraculously turn into voters. It needs to be in order otherwise it is going to get very confusing for me. Otherwise I am good with T, flowing and argumentatively. I used to run a Space Elevator aff last year (Transportation Infrastructure topic) and lost only 2 topicality debates amongst the 50 or so rounds people ran T against me.

Theory is a different story, it also needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters but the problem with theory debates is that people will fire off 10 reasons why condo is bad and move on. I prefer quality over quantity in any case with theory, it is better to have better developed arguments than 100 scrubby reasons why it is bad or good. Also slow down on the theory

Framework
Definitely goes without saying that I will evaluate it first in round. Do your policy mumbo-jumbo or your kritikal framework just please make the interpretation clear and tell me what this round signifies. Also the team that has a framework needs to have an advocacy for me to vote on. Its cool if you want me to vote on a policy framework saying that the affirmative has to use the USfg but you need a negative strategy to meet your own framework otherwise I will say framework is a wash.

Counterplans
Go for them, so long as they are not abusive. I do find PICs abusive and really annoying to answer as the affirmative. I will vote for them, I just won't enjoy voting for them. They also have to have specific solvency to the case and an external net benefit that does not link into the counterplan.

Disadvantages
Love them, go for them in every round, do it. I will love you fiveever. There are a few critical points: you need to win the disadvantage, you need to do overviews in every speech you talk about the disadvantage, you need to incorporate an impact comparison, you also need to read specific links to the case, and finally more than one impact can help solidify your position but then 1ar impact turns become jusitified.

Kritiks
I enjoy watching rounds that have interesting/weird kritiks. However, I suffer from mental k-tardation and have trouble judging critiques that are not simple (i.e. Capitalism and security). Develop a link story, an implication or result of their actions, and tell me what the alternative does and how the alternative will solve. There are some dumb critiques that I have seen in the past that I will not tolerate (some include- time cube (yes I have seen it run as a critique), schopenhauer, christianity, and basically any critique that makes me hate myself for being me (anti-whiteness, feminism, obesity)). With that in mind please add overviews to every speech you mention the critique.

Performance
Again, I suffer from k-tardation. Keep it simple please and overview your speeches. Otherwise have fun and do what you want

If you have any questions feel free to email me at jmierzwa95@gmail.com or talk to me if you see me or if I am judging you.