Burke,+Jared

Jared Burke Bakersfield High School class of 2017 Assistant Coach for Bakersfield High School, effective 2017 Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021 If there is an email chain I would like to be on it: jaredburkey99@gmail.com If you have any questions feel free to email me if you have any question I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year now I debate for Cal State Fullerton. **For Critical Affirmatives:** I like them, in college and in high school I have read them if you're going to read them though I need a clear understanding of the method that is the most important to me. If you want to be like Fort Hayes from 2002 and say that whatever K they read is you and never say perm, but still intertwine your aff with the K I think that is super cool and really innovative. **VS Framework,** I am not a fan of the "framework is exclusionary args," just because I think there are more innovative ways to answer framework procedurals, but if they are well developed I will vote on them, but a clear understanding of why the method of the aff is key to change squo institutions to me those arguments are very compelling. **For Traditional Affirmatives:** I have dappled with these in high school, even though my argument style has turned more critical I still enjoy the big ol stick heg throwdowns and the countless impact comparisons. So do not be discouraged from reading straight up stuff in front of me even though my style of debate has changed from traditional to know critical. **K****:** Please convey the alternative clearly, this shit is important to me, I am familiar with most K literature such as; antiblackness, cap, Foucault, disability, fem, settler colonialism, semiocap, any transhumanism stuff, however, I am not as familiar with things like psychoanalysis or like DnG but if you read it in front of me then I mean go ahead just explain well. I think that a clever way of extending the alt in the block and in the 2NR is to literally do the alternative. **Specifically for Cap,** if yall read historical materialism I expect you to literally do a historical materialism in both the block and the 2NR. **Framework:** I love it, I find these debates to be fun and interesting, I will have to say I am more persuaded by the institutional type of arguments, but I still do take an interest in the procedural debates. **DA:** Love disad debates, the more specific the better, I should not have to say this, but tell me the story of the disad, not just generic shadow extensions of the disad, I need a literal story. **CP**: These are cool, you know read them if you want to. **T**: If you want to go for T in front me: A. I will probably give you somewhat high speaks, however B. This comes at the risk of losing because I am not very persuaded by T <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">So if your main strategy is T, you might want to strike me <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Politics**: I feel as if I have the same opinion as Parker Coon on politics: "I really need a stalemate associate to resolve this one for me. On one hand, I think the Politics DA is super valuable because it teaches us about current events and a lot about how the political system functions both theoretically and actually. On the other hand, I think a lot of Politics DAs have boiled down to "plan unpopular, makes people mad, something does/doesn't happen, vote neg" without a clear story as to what's going on. I generally detest the strategy of the neg block reading a slew of cards to answer the 2ACs arguments, but that seems to be the norm with the Politics DA. You'll do much better in front of me if you point to the nuances of what your card is saying, and develop a scenario that I can assign risk to. A lot of this can be applied to other arguments as well." By the way, I do enjoy politics debates. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I also like to have the same rule as Leo Kim (TKO) who helped our high school team quite a bit with just simply card cutting: "Technical Knockout. If you are 100% you have won the debate, call a TKO, and tell me the argument that wins the round. I will stop the debate, evaluate it, and if you are correct, you and your partner will receive two 30s. If you are wrong, you will receive 0s. Do you dare take the challenge?"