Gingold,+William

I graduated from Harvard-Westlake in 2014 and am currently a student at the University of Chicago. I am fine flowing most speeds (unless you are as fast as Ram Prasad), but I am not afraid to say clear. Please make it clear when arguments stop and other start. Slow down if you are planning to read multiple short analytic framework justifications.

Extensions: You need to extend the claim, warrant, and impact/implication to your arguments. If you are affirming I will be more lenient on 1AR extensions, but if arguments are incomplete I will not evaluate them.

Dense Philosophy / Kritiks: I am not familiar with most critical literature, so be careful if you are planning on reading something complex. If you can explain your arguments you should be fine, but don’t expect me to understand your case any better than your opponent understands it.

Theory: I loved reading theory as a debater, so I am fine seeing debaters read it for strategic purposes. Although I love theory debate, if you are reading a silly shell or one that is obviously wrong, don’t expect to get great speaker points. I default to reasonability although prefer evaluating theory through competing interpretations. Additionally, I default drop the argument unless drop the debater is read on both theory and topicality.

Theoretical Justifications for Framework and other Pseudo Theory: I will not evaluate arguments linking back to fairness and education unless an impact to the voter is read (in the same way you need to justify why fairness matters in a theory shell).

AC K vs. Topicality: In the case that (a) topicality goes conceded, (b) a well warranted argument that the AC can be read on any topic goes conceded, or (c) a well warranted argument that the AC can be read on both sides of the topic goes conceded, I will not evaluate K comes before topicality. To clarify, this includes rejecting arguments that say that the K is more important than T, and rejecting arguments that T is harmful to the education of the round or the real world.

Comparative Worlds v Truth Testing: I default to comparative worlds interpretation, but I am open to arguments as to why I should evaluate the round based on truth testing.

What NOT to do: -offensive arguments -blatantly false arguments (your speaks will go down) -be rude