Kerlegon,+Allison

I really like debaters who are polite and nice to each other and to me. Rude debaters, regardless of their debate ability, rarely get my vote.

My strict paradigms are to use clear, warranted argumentation within the round and to speak clearly. I'm primarily a laptop flower, so I like to hear the debate over the clicking of my keys. The only other thing I'm a stickler to is quality over quantity. I'd rather listen to //3-4 well articulated// off-case positions than //10-14 off-case positions because there is no way the affirmative can flow them all.// Because honestly, if I start to think you are trying to time-suck the other team into leaving arguments untouched or poorly touched, I start to feel like I got time-sucked too. As a debater, I hated when teams would do that because it's not just not communicative, but it negatively impacts the discourse community inherent within policy debate.
 * Policy Debate**

Apart from those that really matter to me, here are my preferences for a round. If these don't get followed, I am not too heart-broken, but it's important to note.
 * I do like listening to on-case argumentation on both sides.
 * I like well-run topicality arguments A LOT.
 * I'm not the biggest fan of multiple neg worlds in the 2NR (because there are too many options!)
 * I've read Nietzsche way too many times, and now Nietzsche kritiks make me groan.
 * I'm fine with most other critical positions, and so long as you warrant it, I'll roll with it.
 * I can handle speed pretty well, but I will give verbal warnings about speed or clarity.
 * I will call for evidence if the card is contested, but I will not call for cards if I have to fill in the holes in your argumentation.

My clear warranted argumentation, clear speaking, and quality over quantity paradigms carry over. Apart from that, I like debates that reference the value and criterion throughout, because if the value(s) aren't the paramount issue in value debate, I'm not sure what is. I'm not the biggest fan of policy jargon in value debate because the goal (as I see it) is to debate ideas instead of actual solutions. I do expect the debate to be somewhat slower than a typical policy round, but I am forgiving so long as I can understand it and the purpose isn't to time-suck your opponent. I feel weird asking for evidence in LD, so I would prefer not asking unless the evidence is contested and it is vital to my decision.
 * Lincoln-Douglass Debate**

I graduated from Cypress Falls HS in 2007 (LD/Policy/Congress). I have two years of NPDA/AFA and a semester and a half of CEDA. I'm currently affiliated with the Houston Academy for International Studies, specifically with their policy program and UIL debate events. I judge the current policy topic at least a tournament every month, if not more.
 * About Me**