Samson,+Hannah


 * Background:** I debated LD for University School (FL) throughout my high school career. I am currently a senior at Yale University.


 * General Paradigm: ** I'll adjudicate any and all arguments impartially; I don't have a strong bias for or against any particular argument. I firmly believe that winning a debate is not predicated on what arguments a debater chooses, but on how effectively and coherently that debater executes those arguments.


 * Framework/A priori arguments: ** Use them. Yes, they make cases "tricky," but debate is about improving cognitive ability and including a priori arguments/interacting with them demonstrates higher-level thinking--a commendable trait. As a debater, I ran permissibility and skeptical arguments. If carried out properly and coherently, those types of arguments can definitely earn you higher speaks.


 * Theory: ** If it is justified, employ theoretical arguments. My BS meter is one of normality; use your common sense as an intellectual debater to know when running theory is or is not acceptable. If there is clear abuse, theory may be the most effective way to beat it back. However, it also may be helpful to provide another layer of refutation in your rebuttal. So, you should answer the abuse on a substantive level in addition to on a theoretical level. Deviate from reading generic shells verbatim and make round specific links/standards.


 * Strategy:** Throughout the round, be sure to illustrate a coherent ballot story. Please road map, signpost, and e xplain argument interaction. Most importantly, provide a method to prioritize arguments. I f you do a decent job at doing so, I will adjudicate the round based on that prioritization. I will not intervene with my own personal biases about what arguments should be adjudicated first UNLESS neither debater provides some sort of decision calculus.


 * Speed/Speaks:** I am fine with speed. However, sacrificing speed for clarity (especially when dealing with complex arguments) will earn higher speaks. Slow down for claims.


 * Additional Notes:** Do not be abrasive or circuitous in CX. Rather, be cordial; you two aren't fighting to stay alive.... it's a (high school) debate round. Moreover, CX is binding, as debaters base their strategies on answers given in CX. Additionally, come to the round pre-flowed please. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round! Remember, debate should be fun and educational... NOT stressful.