Meyers,+Doug

My name is douglas meyers. I am a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I debated LD all 4 years of HS for Scarsdale high. I always thought of myself as a competent circuit debater, but I guess my zero career bids says otherwise… take that how you will

UPDATED FOR SCARSDALE INVITE 2013

__General things:__ __More Specific Things:__ As I said, I debated at scarsdale, and I also went to NSD for a couple summers. I think I had a pretty stereotypical scarsdale debate style. I ran cases with a bunch of tricks and a huge framework with dozens of spikes, that had multiple ways out, most of which were not clear until later speeches…. I’m very okay voting for presumption/permissibility/skept/apriori if it is won. That being said, this strategy wasn’t very successful for me as a debater, so may just be a bad strategy in general…. Figure it out
 * I think that debate is a competitive game, so both sides can/should use any types of arguments or strategies that they think will help secure a W (inside the rules of course).
 * Since I have judged one tournament ever before that means:
 * o I will probably suck at flowing for the first couple of rounds, then move into the mediocre range
 * § I will say clear a few times
 * § PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR AUTHORS
 * o I have no idea what any of the common argument, terms, and authors are for this topic. That means you should explain everything to me pretty clearly, especially early in the tournament

I hate LARP/Body counting util debates. I will listen to them, and I will vote on them if you win on the flow, but i generally think that it is more or less impossible for any topic to be linked to extinction (except nukes probably), and thus will be very receptive to answers which explain why this is the case. When some1 runs a plan infront of me, I want the neg to get up there and destroy the usually bad aff framework, and tell me why the link story is bad. What i do not want is for the neg to stand up and read 3 DAs

__Theory__: If your partner is being abusive, definitely use it. If you think running it will be a strategic advantage, probably use it (unless its super dumb). I will vote on any interp/violation that’s won. I even enjoy/am impressed by a round that has good Theory debate. I will 100% listen to an RVI. I will evaluate 2AR RVI’s in response to 2NR theory How to have a good theory debate: WEIGH YOUR STANDARDS! weigh on importance of the standard or strength of link of violation of the standard, or anything else you can come up with. Have strong internal links. I hate when people have standards and don’t explicitly link them to fairness (or edu, or whatever). If you don’t tell me why ground links to fairness you will lose speaks, and if your opponent calls you out on, lose the round. //Call your opponent out on shitty internal links.// This applies for all links, (violations, links in the voter itself) DO NOT just go up there and read 7 semi-responsive pre-written arguments that kinda apply to what they are saying, but only kinda. This serves to muddle the debate immensely, because 1 of the 77 args you each put on their standards will be won, and I will have no idea what the hell to do next. Define exactly what you mean when you say competing interps or reasonability or any other theory jargon, because the meaning of these are NOT static, and probably have changed over this summer/year

__Speaks:__ This is the part of my paradigm I am least sure about. I imagine I will be kinda nice with speaks. I’ll try to use the scale of: 27.5 avg, 28 almost break, 28.5 prob break, 29 up, definitely break Ways to lose speaks in front of me: - be super unclear/talk in a really annoying voice - Run theory poorly - Mischaracterize/botch an ethical theory - Employ a bad in round strat - Bother me in any other way shape or form - Stealing prep Ways to gain speaks: - be funny - run an awesome argument/case - surprise me in later speeches with a cool strategy - LAYER THE DEATE - Weigh often and meaningfully - Be technically efficient - Call your opponents out on bad extensions - Not using all of your prep time - Kicking ass in CX/ be perceptually dominant in the round
 * o also, Its annoying when people speak faster then they can think of arguments in rebuttals.
 * o By this I mean after u end prep, don’t take 1.5 mins to get ready and take stuff out of your expando/pull stuff up on your comp… do that during prep
 * o but don’t be too much of a dick… a fine line… good luck
 * o this includes cool triggers and such
 * o Don’t just say “this outweighs on magnitude”
 * o i.e. the more prep you don’t use, the higher ur speaks
 * o Gotta try to stay on the good side of the dick line again

Random args I dislike (but will still vote for if won… it prob just gonna take a little more to convince me): - fairness doesn’t exist, and then 7 shitty reasons - Micropolitics - narratives __Other things__: I reserve the right to boost or drop ur speaks by .5 based on your outfit I didn’t have a lot of exposure to K’s, so I know NONE of the lit…. please explain it to me after you finish reading the card in a fashion that I can comprehend. I generally think that K’s should have Alts, and that “reject the (aff/neg) mindset” is not a sufficient alt. I will call evidence, after most rounds, to make sure what you say your card says actually is what your card says This has turned out to be much longer, and much more of a rant then I originally intended… moral of the story, if you like the style that my teammates and I employed last year, I’ll probably be a good judge for you.
 * - plans (I generally think plans are unfair)**
 * - Body counting Util debates**