Quinn,+Jacob

Jacob Quinn University of Texas (Austin) Background: I Debated at Grapevine High School on the National circuit for 4 years

Root Cause Analysis: I do not view root cause analysis as offense. At best it is terminal defense against the impacts of the other team.

General Philisophy: Tabula Rosa- If you give me ample reason and enough analysis then I will vote for anything. Impact Calculus on all your arguments is a must however. The best debates are where both sides do what they are best at and there is tons of clash everywhere-Hencew why I am Tabula Rosa.

Topicality: I generally have a higher threshold on T, though usually I accept a competing interpretations framework, unless you persuade me otherwise. I have a tendency to be a bit aff biased on T but that doesn't mean you shouldnt run it. But both sides must do a good job explaining the impacts to your arguments here just like everywhere else.

Theory: Again a slightly higher threshold on theory than some others. I generally feel that the neg gets fiat, and that most CP's are probably not abusive, PICs are probably good and conditionality can be a good thing but you can convince me otherwise. I like theory debates so don't think that just becuase I have a higher threshold that I will not vote on theory because if you do a good job on it I will. Note: On some process CP's like offsets, delay, signing statements etc. I have a lower threshold for theory than on the arguments mentioned above but you should still run whatever you feel like I wont hold it against you.

DA's: Run whatever you want here, but you must give impact calculus and comparison

CP's: Run anything you like here, if you provide me with enough reasons and warrants to vote for your CP I will do it even if it is one of the ones mentioned above that I am not a huge fan of.

K's: I will probably understand the CP/DA strats better than the K angles because I consider myself a bit more policy than kritikal but that doesnt mean I wont vote on K's. I am not an expert at crazy K's, D + G, Lacan etc. are fine but if you run things like that then explanation and analysis is a must. In fact, explanation of a K is always a must otherwise the debate turns into two teams yelling buzz words and catch phrases at each other while someone reads Zizek in the background. Again, I will vote on anything just remember that all aspects (alt, links, etc.) require explanation and development.

Performance: I am not at all oppossed to this, just know that it is not something I would call myself used to. As it is, I expect you to answer the arguments made in round and provide explanations of and about your performance.

Speed/Speaking: Speed is fine as long as your clear and understandable, and trust me: im not shy when it comes to yelling "clear".

Final Word: -Be nice, speaker points will suffer for those who are jerks, afterall, debate should be a freindly competitive activity.