Stuckert,+JP

Update for Strake 2015: The note below applies this year as well. Also I'd like to clarify that my paradigmatic preferences have grown so flexible to the point that if there is seemingly implicit agreement about some issue between debaters I won't apply my paradigm even if there's not an explicit reason for me to ignore my defaults. The majority of the time this is applicable I will assume competing interps when both debaters appear to be operating under the assumption that it is true even though I'd prefer to default to reasonability and nobody gave a competing interps warrant at the proper time. Some stuff has been changed below but it's just clarification.

Update for Glenbrooks 2014: It's been a while since I've seen a debate round and most of my activity in the community has just been helping kids on the research side of topics. So I know a little about the lit but might take a while getting back into thinking like a debater.

I sort of debated PF for a year and LD for three years for Strake Jesuit. I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit.
 * Err on the side of over-developing and over-impacting every argument. I’m all for long spelled out positional arguments instead of tons of short underdeveloped warrants.
 * You should make strategic moves but also be prepared to defend your position. Speaks are based on strat and development of args.
 * When adjudicating framework debates I think that there are arguments which proactively show a framework to be false and arguments which are defense to specific warrants for a framework. This means if the reasons a framework is false “outweigh” the reasons a framework is true then the framework goes away. This is does not imply that I think framework debate is comparative; terminal defense can happen on both frameworks. If someone argues epistemic modesty or for a risk of offense model I will shift to that model.
 * On theory I default to reasonability and drop the argument. The threshold is demonstrating abuse in round. Under reasonability my assumption is spirit of the interp, but if competing interps is justified I assume text. I also think it is at least conceptually possible for there to be terminal defense on a theory shell even under competing interps, but it’s probably a very rare occurrence.
 * I don’t mind pre-fiat or micropolitical arguments but I think you need well-developed arguments for why my ballot is implicated. While I don’t mean to generalize, I have seen arguments that claim to modify the “role of the ballot” being used in ways that aren’t that fleshed out.
 * I will probably hold affirmatives which don’t begin the round with post-fiat arguments to a fairly high standard to get my ballot (i.e. an aff can win on micropolitical arguments but I’d prefer resolutional arguments to at least be made).
 * My default assumption is that performance and method are separate; feel free to argue against this.
 * Be polite to novices. You can use all of your speech time to grant them the dignity of a full round but you don’t have to blow them away.
 * Avoid rhetorical appeals which aim to exclude particular styles or arguments. You can make arguments and engage in strategies which exclude these styles but respect that all types of debate carry some legitimacy (I don’t wanna hear references to “bad theory debaters” or “stupid analytic framework” or “annoying pre-fiat args”)
 * Aim towards clarity and providing concrete ballot stories.
 * Things I won’t buy:
 * Going back on an agreement made in CX
 * New arguments which are not responding to arguments in the immediately prior speech
 * An argument which collapses my role to select a winner based on the arguments in the flow (i.e. reading determinism to steal ballot)
 * This does not mean that odd things like applying phil args to ROBs or theory voters are disallowed. Only if you literally tell me can no longer select a winner of the round (and you get to or I have to give a double-win/loss) will I ignore you.
 * Contradicting a position you held earlier in the round without utilizing an opponent’s argument to allow you to go back on the argument (for example kicking an aff standard with framework defense on it is fine but you can’t deny your framework is true if they don’t reply to it).
 * Arguments based on the prefs of your opponent.