Meah,+Joshua

I debated for Arthur L Johnson HS in New Jersey for four years and competed both locally and nationally. I attended four debate camps over my debate career and have taught at a couple others. I currently coach debaters, of many differing styles, all around the country. That said, there is not a single thing you can do in a round that I won't be able to understand/judge. HOWEVER - there are a few pet peeves. 1) Theory - similar to how Jacob Levi and Max Stevens believe theory ought to be used, I will not vote for a theory argument that does not site a legitimate violation. This means a couple things for you. First, winning the theory argument won't automatically win you the round. Theory is, in actuality, a call for intervention. I believe that we should debate the issues of the topic, whether that means the assumptions of it or the "normal" arguments associated with it. If you are asking for a ballot for any other reason than winning those types of arguments, then there needs to be a good reason for it. I will tell you outright - if I don't find the violation to be legitimate, then I won't vote for the theory argument. 2) Warrants - I like well warranted arguments and admittantly have a slight bias towards good empirical evidence. I would prefer that debaters take the time to weigh the competing types of evidence to explain why I should vote on way or the other. However, in the event that an analytical and an empirical warrant are both dropped, I have a strong propensity towards "buying" the empirical one. *Hint: Use empirical evidence in front of me* 3) Evidence - I expect all evidence to be fully sourced. If I ask for something after the round, I'd like the title of the work/literature, author, and the author's credentials. Also, if I find ellipsis within the evidence, I would much appreciate that you have the entire "card" (quotation) with you. If the latter is not available, then you can expect a drop in speaker points. A lack of title and/or author, would also merit a drop in speaker points. 4) Speed - I don't care how fast you go. Be clear. HOWEVER - speed with bad word economy or strategy will yield a LARGE (EMPHASIS ON LARGE) deduction in speaker points. Speed is not impressive; though, good, comprehensive debate is 5) Kritiks - Don't kritik the meaning of language. I won't listen to it. I don't care what else you do. 6) Speaker points - They are subjective. I give speaker points based on the quality of the tournament pool and the overall performance of the debater. The short story is that I will ALWAYS reward topical debaters that use good strategy. Oh, and be nice to each other. 7) Bad Strategy - I'm not going to spend the time here to explain what I think good strategy is, but I will tell you what it isn't. Speed for the purpose of confusion is bad strategy. Confusing wording for the purpose of making an argument sound "smarter" or confusing your opponent is also bad strategy. also - I try to be nice Have fun (always have fun)! That's all.