Wilson,+Jack

I debated for Ridge High School in New Jersey, competing on both the local and national circuits, qualifying to ToC my senior year. I currently study History at Queen's University ('18).

**1.** Work your way to top speed over first 15 secs of your speech, enunciate card names, I'll say clear, slow, louder, etc. twice before docking speaks. **3.** I think the role of the judge should be defined by the debaters. As such, I will remain as objective as possible through the entire round. I'll leave it up to the debaters to tell me whether to function under a competing worlds, truth testing, ROB/J paradigm, etc. If no arguments are made about framing I'll default to whatever seems to fit the best (i.e., comparative worlds in LARP rounds).
 * Short **
 * 2. ** You should run the arguments that make you comfortable, not the arguments that you think I'll like. When I debated I ran mostly Ks my senior year, but that doesn't mean I'm predisposed to vote for those types of arguments. Do what you do best.
 * 4. I will vote on any warranted argument as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, colonialist, etc. **

-I will default to reasonability on theory unless told otherwise; on matters of topicality, I'll default to competing interpretations. If you win a good abuse story under a reasonability paradigm you will certainly earn high speaks for yourself. -I will assume drop the argument on theory unless argued otherwise and drop the debater on topicality. -I will assume all counter-interpretations need an RVI. If a counter-interp is to be offensive, it needs a standard that justifies the offensive plank in the interp. -I would prefer that paragraph theory in the 1AC have a voter justified in the 1AC as well. -If you make new interpretations of tricks that aren't specified in the 1AC, then the neg can respond to those implications, but not the argument itself.
 * Theory **

-Perms are a test of competition on CPs -Perms against Ks are best with a net benefit -Skep triggers are inherent to most philosophy, but should be implicated well in the 1AR.
 * Other defaults **

-Having a well thought out, engaging debate that weighs fairness vs. role of the ballot arguments. I don't want to hear a generic dump, there are so many great nuanced arguments for both sides. -Winning some form of skepticism (not as a trigger, but as a position) and making implications that transcend 1AC framework -Going farther left while responding to critiques (i.e., reading a methodology K against a critical framework, or reading cap as a response to race) -Topicality debates with carded standards -Util cases with systemic, rather than extinction, impacts. -Debates that involve Foucault tend to be intellectual stimulating. -Super cool philosophy debates.
 * Debates that will earn you higher speaks: **