Alfieri,+Elyssa

Harrison High School '16 Binghamton University '20 Conflicts: Harrison, and North Hollywood JS

I debated for Harrison High School in NY for four years and I currently debate for Binghamton University. I'm familiar with the national circuit and with more traditional styles of debate.

GENERAL:
 * Be clear, slow down on tags and enunciate**.** I'd rather you don't go your top speed, probably 80% of your top speed is fine. I will yell clear and slow. If I miss your arguments I will only call for evidence if I messed up.
 * Weighing, crystallizing and warranted extensions are so important regardless of what position you're running. Doing these three things is a sure fire way to get good speaks from me.
 * Be kind and respectful to your opponent (I really dislike mean debaters!!!!) and don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ect.

THEORY/T: I'm fine with T or theory. I don't think frivolous T/theory is strategic but feel free to run it. I love when debaters make theory arguments that are specific to the abuse being discussed (i.e not just from your team's old back files). Remember to weigh, theory debates can get messy and I'd rather not intervene. I default to: drop the arg and competing interp but will evaluate theory however you tell me to.

CRITICAL ARGS: I like Ks especially ones that have implementable alternatives, but you can read other types of alternatives I don't mind. If you are running a super complicated K then please slow down and explain your arguments thoroughly. Like always, don't forget to weigh.

POLICY: I was never much of a policy debater so it would be best if you explained your jargon to me, I understand most arguments but better safe than sorry. Please slow down on card names, tags and other important info. I am not a fan of unrealistic extinction scenarios, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

TRICKS: Not really a fan and I don't think I'd be a good judge to evaluate them. If you do decide to run them I would prefer that the way the argument functions is clear in the first speech. If you're hitting a debater who is running tricks feel free to run theory - I'd be happy to evaluate it.

DENSE FRAMEWORK: Explain, Explain, Explain. Please don't assume I know everything there is to know about your FW - even if I do I won't do that work for you. Also, big picture analysis is always a plus.

SPEAKS: As a general rule of thumb, I start at a 28 then work my way up or down from there. To get above a 29.5 means that I see you in late elims at the tournament.

Because I love this from Danny's paradigm: (https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/DeBois%2C+Danny) __ **Theory Shells (and other arguments) I Will Never, Ever, Ever Vote For <3 ** __
 * Must disclose full text of cards. Generally I'm skeptical of disclosure theory unless it's against a hyperspecific argument (plan/counterplan/T), but I'll at least evaluate it. (That doesn't mean I'm anti-disclosure. I'm just anti-dumb theory arguments.)
 * Must say out-loud when something in a card is bracketed. No, this isn't going to be a thing.
 * Must run skep triggers. That's a joke.
 * Speed Theory. Nuh-uh.
 * Flash drive theory (if they offer to give you their computer and/or pass pages). Please.
 * Arguments criticizing an opponent's judge prefs, the behavior of a debater's coach, or anything along those lines.
 * Must turn off WiFi during the round (of course--if you have evidence they actually //used// wifi during the round, theory could be appropriate.)