Safavi,+Leila

I debated for The Hockaday School in Dallas from 2008-2012, mostly on the local circuit. I am currently a student at the University of Chicago.

Speed: Do not use this opportunity to speak as fast as you possibly can. I have not touched debate in a year and as a result my flowing is pretty mediocre, so please aim for a brisk jog or slower instead of a sprint. Slow down especially for tags and important analytics. I will say "clear" up to three times if you are speaking too quickly, however I am willing to make numerous confused expressions if necessary.

Argument Content: Aside from theory, I do not have any strong preferences for what kinds of arguments you run or their structure as long as they are warranted and coherent. I just need a specified weighing mechanism so I know what to link arguments to. Be very explicit as to why your arguments preclude or come before others on the flow.

Theory: I will grudgingly evaluate theory. I think there is a clear delineation between running theory for the sake of strategy and running theory because of actual in-round abuse, and you will not like your speaker points if you engage in the former. In addition to just disliking it, I ran theory sparingly as a debater, so I am not the most skilled judge at evaluating a theory round either. If you must run theory and absent any in-round justifications, I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and am fine making theory go away based on defense on a shell. If there are theory arguments in multiple places on the flow (ex. theory justifications in the framework and a separate shell), it is important that you take the time to layer the debate.

Weighing: You need to do this, otherwise you risk the chance of me evaluating the debate in a different way than you intended. I prefer that you spend time weighing and strategically layering the debate instead making more arguments that don't link back or have a coherent ballot story. If empirics clash, I am impressed by a good methodology comparison.

Your speaks go up if you have: a clear decision calculus, interesting framework, neat extensions, criterion/burden specific weighing, strong CX, strategic issue selection Your speaks go down if you have: abusive theory, a tendency to confuse funny with cocky, sloppy cross-applications, emotional appeals instead of warrants, lots of arguments that you don't tell me what to do with

Most importantly, have fun and feel free to ask any other questions you have before the round.