Kerrigan,+Alec

I did policy for J.H. Rose High School (NC) for 1 year and LD for 3 years for Jupiter High School (FL) and have had extensive experience in both the local and national circuit. I currently coach and judge for Jupiter High School

If by some unfortunate even I'm judging PF, treat me like a policy judge and clearly weigh and extend impacts. Don't read those observations at the top because in my experience with reading PF cases they never actually mean anything.

tl;dr version Run whatever you want that has warrants. Go as fast as you wish. I default to a adjudicator of the resolution as a truth statement. Competing interps need an RVI to be offensive. Be nice

Long

Overview Debate is a game where anything goes. I never saw debate that much as an educational activity but rather a competitive event for those who like more informational stuff, however I do recognize that debate has a unique educational value to some people. Please don't use it as a outlet to exert your unwarranted self importance onto others.

There are no arguments I will either drop you for or even lower your speaks for. However, remember that both me and your opponent are real people that can get offended (although as some people have pointed out in real life, I have a high threshold for "offensive speech". Short of wishing violence onto your opponent or members of his race/sexual orientation, I don't believe offensive language exists. Because of this, you will have to do extra work to win on discursive word PICs). I do not endorse censorship nor will enforce it through "speak docking", however just because I won't punish you for running rape good doesn't mean you should. With that said, I like really unique and out of the box arguments. I have nothing wrong with voting for wipeout or dedev.

Speaking If its LD, I'm pretty sure I can flow you. If I yell clear, you're being unclear, not going too fast. That being said, please be extra clear if your case is extremely analytic and has a bunch of spikes. **Please attempt keep your pitch at normal conversational pitch.** There are some people who try to "save oxygen" via making their voice high and sounding like a Japanese schoolgirl, but I find it not only hard to flow but distracting. If you can adapt your speaking to this, please do. If this is the only way you can spread I'll deal with it, but you should consider not preffing me.

Framework I don't have any particular preferences with ways to structure our case, however having a clear burden or standard is really nice. The easier it is to understand how your arguments function the easier it is for me to vote for them. I tend to have a bad habit of taking the easy way out (aprioris or spikes), so better weighing and better means of weighing means I will be less likely to do so.

I default to truth testing because I don't know what the "maxim" of the resolution is. I'm perfectly fine if you want to inteperate the res as competing worlds, but you need to clearly tell me what that means because I think most competing worlds debaters don't.

I'm fine with AFC, but just so you know, I know exactly why you're running it.

Policy/ Util debating

I'm cool with LARPing and that kind of thing. However, I don't like the trend of LD powertagging to try and squeeze a DA out of every topic. If the links are dropped, I'll buy it, but otherwise when weighing I have a high threshold for links that just have a single word in the topic once in a list. Also, don't misrepresent evidence. If the internal warrant of a link is contested at all, I'l probably call for it.

Ks I identify as an anarcho-capitalist, so I personally think most K literature is wrong, but I'll be willing to listen to it and judging it can be fun. With that said, don't ask me what K lit I'm familiar with because I'll just bullshit you. If I need prior knowledge of an argument for it to make any sense, then I'm inserting warrants into your shit and giving you extra speech time. Go ahead and tell me about the hetero-normative white supremacist colonialist capitalist patriarchy, but don't expect me to weigh it above other arguments. If it sounds like you're just reading tumblr posts (and I swear to god I've judged somebody who did) I'll likely be predisposed to your opponents responses. If you DO have an unique K that isn't just marxist buzzwords, I will happily vote on it and give you extra speaks. If its pre-fiat, you're probably going to be engaged in a uphill battle because you're asking to to change the world with my ballot, I'd probably be afraid of destroying capitalism because I like it.

Theory I like theory. I don't understand the recent growing vendetta against it. Honestly, I think it fosters more critical thinking than most substances arguments, and therefore I proboly have a lower threshold than many to vote for it. I'm fine with RVIs. I'll give high speaks if you use theory strategically or if you run a really cool and unique T shell. Please don't use this as an excuse to do nothing but read unwarrented shells though.I default to competing interps and drop the debater. On competing interps - you need an RVI for them to be offensive. To me, a competing interp is just more reasons as to why your position is fair, and by itself is not a reason to vote for you. Don't try to simply reword the interp to sound offensive (the neg may not prohibit the aff from having a necessary but insufficient burden) without the standards themselves indicting the actual act of running theory (the neg's NIB shell for example) i.e. without an RVI. While I like theory, I won't give you good speaks if you use it just because you're not creative enough to engage your opponents arguments (running must run a plan/must not run a plan because you can't fill up your 7 minutes.). If you make the debate interesting, however, expect higher speaks.

On Disclosure: Apparently people are running this now. Its fine.

In all, do what you wish. Don't be an ass to your opponent (acting too cool for school and making super sekrit camp in jokes that they wouldn't get). Feel free to contest my decision, I will not think any less of you if you do.

hi tessa