Lee,+Brian

Updated:11/21/16 ====I debated for three years at Anderson high school in Austin, Texas, and competed in LD at the local, state, and national circuit. I believe debate should be a fun and educational activity, and that debaters should not hesitate to read any arguments they feel passionate about. ====

__**Speed: **__
====Go for it, but be clear. I'll remind you twice, and then I will dock your speaks. I won't vote on anything I don't pick up. I find it's much easier for me to listen when debaters start off slower at the beginning of the AC or NC and then gradually pick up to their ideal speed. Then again, while I think my flow is pretty good, if you're spreading at the TOC level, please make sure to slow down on tags or the most important aspects of your evidence/analytics. Nevertheless, if I don't tell you to slow down, you're fine. ====

__**K's: **__
====Love them. I mostly ran these arguments in my last two years of debate. However, you should make sure you have a specific link to the aff's advocacy or I'll get bored and not give you much leeway winning the link debate. I'm not a fan of generic links you can read on any topic. ====

__**Theory/Topicality: **__
====If you're A strat is going all in on theory from the get-go, I'm probably not the best judge for you. I'm not a fan of frivolous theory, and if you are confused on what I mean by frivolous, you can ask me before round. I find that this is more of a problem for theory, rather than topicality. I default to competing interps and drop the debater unless told otherwise. I'm not a huge fan of RVI debates as well, but will vote on it if that's what the debate comes to. For example, I think if the aff has to respond to multiple theory shells in the 1AR, an RVI is justified. I do think that theory/T is beneficial in many circumstances, and will also look to reasonability if told to do so. ====

__**Speaks: **__
====Speaks will be based on the quality of a debater's arguments and his or her strategy of choice within the round. While, I don't really care about presentation, clarity of how the argument/strategy is delivered will help raise speaks. I'd also prefer a clear story of the round near the end of the debate. ====

__**Other: **__

 * ====Overviews are amazing. They provide a clear story for the round, and will make the decision much easier for me. ====
 * ====While I believe debate should be a fun and educational activity, you should not plan on reading skep in front of me. I dont like it. ====
 * ====I will give more leeway on extensions for the 1AR ====
 * ====If there's a role of the ballot argument and theory/T in the debate, it would be beneficial for a debater to inform me on how to weigh the two arguments against each other. ====
 * ====Flashing/emailing cards/cases will not come out of prep-time unless it's taking an enormous amount of time to do so ====
 * ====Sexist, racist, and any other derogatory comments/arguments will cost you the round, and 20 speaks. ====
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1.066em; line-height: 1.5;">I enjoy hearing role of the ballot arguments, but would like justification on why these are an a-priori argument in context of the resolution.