Purvis,+Emily

I debated for Presentation High School on the national and local circuit for 3 years. I am now an undergrad at UC Berkeley.

I will evaluate any type of argument, in the order you tell me to during the round. I prefer clear standards debates (less work for me), but absent a clearly established framework I will (begrudgingly) go through the different levels of argumentation made in round, decide who I think is winning the framework, and evaluate offense through that framework. Weighing is important on all levels of the debate.

My goal is to intervene as little as possible. However, I reserve the right to not vote for arguments I find morally repugnant (genocide good, etc). Please don't run these arguments in front of me. I don't really expect this to be a problem with 99.9% of debaters though.

Although I won't exclude any arguments on face, there are some I dislike more than others. If you run bad theory (poorly warranted theory shells, theory used as a strategic tool instead of as a check against legitimate abuse, etc.) I will be sad and will probably lower your speaks. I also dislike RVIs, apriori exclusions of the opposite side, and AFC. Good kritiks are good, but bad kritiks are bad.

I kind of suck with speed. If you're an enunciation pro, I can probably follow all but your top speed BUT IN GENERAL I'm a little slow. I will say "slow" if I need you to slow down; I will say "clear" if you need to be clearer. I'll only say this once per speech. If I still don't understand you, I'll just stare at you in confusion. Sorry bout it, none of us are perfect.

I average about 28 speaker points. You will be rewarded with higher speaks if you: are clear, make strategic choices, are courteous, etc.

Expect me to steal paper from you prior to the round.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

EDIT: I really REALLY hate pointless theory debates. Please don't run theory unless there is ACTUAL ABUSE OCCURRING in the round. I reserve the right not to vote on your theory shell, even if you're winning it, if there is no clear abuse in the round. For example: neg running "they must defend a specific policy" in response to a philosophical AC doesn't point out abuse, it's just petty whining. That being said, if you can reasonably demonstrate some sort of abuse I'll be totally open to your theory shells-- I'm not mean (hopefully), and theory is definitely an important structural check back against in-round abuse, but use it wisely.