Shapiro,+Leah

I debated for St. Louis Park for 7 years, mostly on the national circuit. I now coach Valley and individuals from Hockaday, Palo Alto and Crossroads.

UPDATE: You probably should strike me. I'll kinda hate you if you don't. But if you refuse to follow this simple request...

Speaking/Presentation Stuff:
 * I’m not great at flowing so don’t go top speed if you’re like Ram-junior. I actually love saying clear unless you don’t adapt. If I can tell you’re trying to adapt, I’ll say it like 4-5 times before I'll just zone out until you fix it. If you don’t change anything (or it’s only for like 5 seconds) I’ll have less patience--I'll say it a couple times and then I’ll stop listening until you fix it. I also will probably not call for anything unless a) I think it’s my fault that I don’t have it flowed or b) there is a disagreement on the text of the card/interp/whatever. So generally speaking, if I don’t have it flowed the first time, I won’t vote on it.
 * I always sat down but I don’t care if you stand or sit. Do whatever.
 * I'd love if we didn't make a big deal about your opponent not flashing. That being said, if you are unwilling to flash then you should probably give your opponent your computer in their CX, prep, and speeches. And you obviously shouldn't ask them to flash if you won't. It'd be cool though if we didn't need to make this a huge deal though.
 * If you want me to flow something verbatim (like a theory interp) then cut your speed in like, half.
 * Structure stuff so it’ll be easy to flow you (like numbers or letters).

Framework (note—these are my preferences but I won’t intervene on these issues. Though if you do adopt these preferences, I’ll be happy and you’ll get good points).
 * I love framework debate. And analytic philosophy. And being a strategic framework debater in front of me will get you high speaks.
 * I'm fairly confident that regardless of which framework is run, Bostrom won't turn it. I don't really want to vote on that. I will if it's won but it will be sad for me.
 * Just quick buzzfeed life hack for you--“Consequentialism” and “ maximizing net benefits” don't justify util. They just justify an ends based theory (e.g. it could be a standard of maximizing legal contracts). And if your standard is artificially narrow, it's probably impact justified. Which is probably bad for a hearty framework debate.
 * If you debate framework a lot, you'll probably be making framework preclusion arguments. You should weigh your preclusion arguments against your opponent's preclusion arguments or the round will get real muddled real quick.
 * I'm down with critical arguments with this caveat; ROB is not a sufficient normative framework. Yes, I intuitively know that racism is bad so yes, in a normal conversation you obviously wouldn't need to justify that to me. Debate rounds are different though; you can't rely on my intuition about bad impacts. If you lack a framework, I won't intervene against the k but I will almost always buy the response that you need a framework. That being said, if your opponent doesn't have a framework, don't be like "do you ever say in the AC that racism/oppression/etc is bad?" You'll seem like a terrible person. Also explain critical philosophy well--I don't understand most of it. Also slow down a little.

Theory
 * **I won’t vote on shells if I can’t verify the violation; This is an absolute constraint on theory.** For example, I won’t vote on disclosure theory or speed theory (I couldn’t tell ya their wpm or whether the case was already broken). I don’t care if they don’t contest the violation in a particular round.
 * AFC is the worst and is killing debate. If you run it, unless the neg concedes to your framework, **I will AUTOMATICALLY give framework to the neg.**
 * I’m bored by dumb generic theory debates “neg must defend sqou” “aff must run a plan” etc. I’ll vote on them but I’d much rather not hear them.
 * I love framework implications for theory and philosophical arguments put in shells (I used to card Rawls in the standards).
 * I like interesting voters but not dumb ones; to me, voters that identify a debate value (fun, education, advocacy skills, etc) have nothing to do with my role as a judge. Again, I'll vote on them, I just personally find them kinda stupid.
 * I like RVIs. I like comply-conflict (especially when they’re nuanced). I like reasonability with a clear bright-line. I won’t intervene for them but I’m predisposed to like the arguments for them.

Policy/Larpy Stuff
 * I'm not predisposed against util at all but just know this:
 * o I know almost nothing about the world. So I don’t know what’s going on and I have no idea how unique your uniqueness is.
 * o I know almost no policy jargon (plz someone explain inherency to me) so I likely won't know what you're even saying.
 * So yeah, nothing against it. But if you’re two of the best util-ers, I can tell you that the round will likely be over my head. Sorry not sorry.

Random Other Stuff:
 * I have no problem with things like skep (and I default truth-testing) unless its purpose is to blatantly offend your opponent (or me). And yes, I know when you’re doing that. I also think debaters are terrible at defending skep but you do you.
 * Please don’t be a terrible person. I was snarky in round and I enjoy that but there is a clear line between being having attitude and making the round unpleasant. Don't cross it. If you’re mean and you make the round hostile, I’m not inclined to vote for you.
 * Use this at your own risk: if you and I are having a ner-ner-ner moment (don’t try if you don’t know what that is and **don't ask me before the round starts**) and you do the ner-ner-ner (only silently if it’s during opponent’s speech), **I’ll give you a 30.** If you do it and I DON’T think we’re ner-ner-ner-ing (and yes it’s totally subjective), then **I will give you an auto 20** (and yes I’m serious). Also don’t do it more than once.
 * I like funny CX. Please entertain me; I’ll probably be bored. But don’t try to be funny if you’re not.
 * Don’t run flashing theory in front of me. Ugh. Heinous.
 * I give a lot of non-verbals. Adapt accordingly.
 * Don’t ask your opponent to defend something in CX and then run theory if they agree. I find that sort of thing super irritating.
 * Oh also, have fun and stuff. Yay debate!