Walsh,+Jack

I’m Jack, I’ve debated policy for going on two years for Davis High School. I'm pretty good with a bunch of arguments. I've run policy affs, K affs, CP/DA/T kinds of negs, theory negs, and K negs. On K negs I've run French PoMo shit, ID politics, and just the traditional topic K negs like security and cap. I probably won't have a a lot of difficulty understanding what you're running if you explain it and don't get too buzzwordy. Make arguments, don't spew data.

Put me on the email chain jrwalsh6122001@gmail.com

I prefer good policy debate, so if you want to win at least try to make things interesting. I enjoy seeing crazy arguments, so I’ll probably vote for you on any argument that isn’t blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ etc. I’ll vote on anything except RVIs unless they drop it. Speaks tend to be bullshit and super subjective, but I know how much they effect breaking, so I’ll generally just take this scale I found online:

29.3+ — the top speaker at the tournament. 29.1-29.2 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament. 28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament. 28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points. 28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points. 28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament. 27.7-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

I’ll increase your speaks for making me laugh or generally being clever in a way I wouldn’t normally see in a policy round.

General rantings:

Do your very best to not be an ass to your opponents, there is a fine line between confident and rude. That said, those who can toe the line between the two tend to be very effective speakers.

I won’t vote on dropped arguments, I’ll vote on dropped arguments where you provide me some rationale for why dropping it wins the round not just “it’s a voter” but “it’s a voter because”

I’ll be flowing on paper, try not to get too far above 500 wpm, particularly on tags or tougher theory/analytic arguments

Spreading: go as fast as you want for the most part, but not too far over 500 wpm. I’ll only really look at the cards if they become a major issue in the debate round. Go slower on tags.

As far as arguments go specifically:

Policy affs: cool, fun, can be well argued. Make sure you tell a convincing impact story and have a good conception of what you’re advocating for

K affs: Cool, fun, can be well argued. Make sure you understand your advocacy, make sure you know your authors. Be really specific on the flow. Traditional negs (DA/CP/Policy case args): cool, fun, can be well argued. Tell good link stories, make sure you explain thek in depth, and try not to make them contradict too much unless you actually want to have a condo debate. If you do, cool, but like why would you want to.

T/Theory/Framework: These can be really effective, but try not to make them your only negative strategy. Make sure you explain why the arguments are voters and don’t run just an unnecessary amount of T/Theory shells. They probably don’t violate every word in the resolution.

K negs: these are my personal favorite. Most of what I said about K affs holds true. Understand your authors, make sure you don’t link into your other arguments, and above all, understand what you’re reading. Few rounds are worse than when neg panics and pulls an Agamben file out of their ass and tries to understand it while reading the 1nc. Don’t be that person. No one likes that person.

Last words: Don’t be a douchebag, try to make it interesting and, like, have fun. As Edmund Zagorin told me at camp “If debate isn’t fun, you might be doing it wrong.”