Embree,+Jared

I debated LD on the national circuit for 3 years.

__speed-__ I was never the fastest, and can generally flow only a bit faster than I can speak. If you feel it's necessary, go as fast as you want- I'll call any evidence I didn't understand because it was delivered too quickly. That being said, slow down the impact analysis, and recognize that confusing arguments are only made more confusing when delivered at high speeds. Don't expect me to buy into something I otherwise wouldn't buy into because you glossed over how poor the analysis actually was with speed. Furthermore, it's harder to understand a subject you don't have prior knowledge of than something you're well versed in. Keep in mind what you know I know, and try to keep novel analysis as accessible as possible to me by slowing down. I'm well versed in the more common framework positions and can follow your line of thinking effectively in some more esoteric and critical philosophies.

__framework-__ I'm not well versed in the literature most often used as justifications for meta-ethics. Knowing this (and taking into account the fact that this stuff tends to devolve into meaningless complexity), try and keep it simple, concise, and logically sound. Explicitly and effectively state each component of the narrative of your framework, and remember, one-sentence summaries at the end/underviews make everyone's life easier. If you feel like playing to my desires from a round, I tend to prefer motivational internalism and contractarian frameworks most. I'm also fine with nontraditional frameworks- the resolution is a statement that the affirmative must prove true, and any framework that establishes context in which to determine the truth of falsity of the resolution is acceptable to me.

__nontraditional case structures-__ love 'em. Don't feel the need to make an interesting argument less interesting by trying to make it fit a more traditional structure. This also goes for rebuttals; overviews that address the fundamental premise of an argument can be as convincing as more traditional rebuttals. After a while, debates on the same topic can blend together. Cool arguments disrupt this monotony, and you will be rewarded if you can run them effectively.

__kritiks-__ also love 'em. Questioning the presuppositions of an advocacy through the use of kritik is incredibly important when considering the educational nature of debate. I am extremely receptive to these arguments, so be prepared to give meaningful, substantive rebuttals if you are faced with them in front of me. I am well versed in a variety of critical literature, and am especially fond of the cap K. The caveat here is feminism; while I believe the substance of the argument to be generally true, I've never been presented with a link story good enough to warrant my vote. With regards to the alt, I firmly believe in the validity and effectiveness of micropolitical change. Debate is a microcosm of ideas, and endorsing a certain idea in the context of a debate round always has consequences for the structure of that ecosystem. If your'e running no alt solvency, be prepared with your absolute best evidence to support that claim, because I haven't voted on a no alt solvency argument yet. You should further recognize that the microcosm of ideas that exists in debate does not exist in a vacuum. This has become painfully evident at several points in the history of debate- the domestic violence resolution had real, negative consequences for lots of people. It's always important to analyze the consequences of what we say and how we say it, and as such I am receptive to any and all forms of kritikal analysis.

__theory-__ I was never very good at it. I'm not very receptive to theory, and see it more as debaters using another tool in their debate toolbox as a means to win, instead of what theory actually is- lodging a legitimate, obvious, and well-explained complaint about something in the round. Don't run blippy shells, and if you're going to run a shell try to really put some effort into it. Give meaningful, effective, clear analysis- and actually use full sentences. I don't understand what makes debaters think that they can shout a quick succession of nonsensical sentence fragments at me and expect me to vote for them because of it. With regards to paragraph theory and spikes, the majority of paragraph theory I've encountered is an unreasonable interp that will very obviously be used offensively later on, poorly disguised as a defensive spike. An example would be 'the NC must concede the AC framework because //timeskew//'- everybody knows this is a ridiculous idea, but because of how little effort it takes to throw it out there it sounds to some like it might be a strategically good idea. A legitimate defensive spike would be 'PICs bad'- there are compelling reasons why PICs are abusive, and they're uncommon enough that it's not actually abusive to restrict negative ground to non-PIC advocacies. Because theory has become a circus of absurd offensive arguments thinly veiled in the cloak of an argument that was originally fundamentally defense against bad debate practices, I am very receptive to the RVI and will not hesitate to drop the debater, just make sure that in running an RVI you don't stoop to the level of blippiness that theory debaters often do; justify your RVI effectively and convincingly and I'll gladly give you my vote.

__conduct-__ I will not drop you for running arguments that are offensive (sexist, racist, transphobic, et cetera). I consider myself tabula rasa, and dropping debaters for offensive arguments is contradictory to the fundamental tenets of my judging philosophy. However, take note of all the things I said on kritiks- it's obvious that we value analysis of //how// we debate. While I do not drop offensive arguments on principle, I am extremely receptive to critical analysis of offensive arguments. Don't worry about not having a formal, carded racism K written up- an effective analysis of the negative consequences of an advocacy is a much a K as the traditional ABC. It's the debater's job to address bad things in the ecosystem of ideas, because debaters are the principle actors in relation to that ecosystem. Also, if you win with an offensive argument, be prepared for extremely low speaks. You don't need to disclose case prior to the round, but you do need to let your opponent see what you've said. If you don't want to flash, that is fine (flashing greatly increases the risk that your cases and evidence will be taken by sneaky opponents), but if you aren't willing to flash, you should have paper copies available as well. Lastly, debate should be enjoyable. Don't do something that will ruin the experience for everyone else involved.