Carelli,+Ryan

=**Policy Paradigm**= I am an open division debater for Boston College. I go for a mix of policy and K arguments. I'm happy with anything you want to go for--I will evaluate arguments based on your framing and will do everything I can to avoid inserting myself into the debate. I won't take prep for flashing. Flash me cards so there are no shenanigans--I won't reread evidence unless I would have called for the cards in a debate where I didn't have a speech doc. I like them, control framing, debate turns case. I'm well read in the lit but I expect EXPLANATION. If you have a lot of depth in your analysis, it will help you tremendously. I'm a good judge for this strategy, make sure you argue turns case and do a lot of comparison, don't just dump cards. I default competing interpretations, but that goes out the window as soon as you argue otherwise, if your aff is reasonably topical, reasonability can be persuasive. IMPACT your voters, compare standards, tell me HOW MUCH fairness vs HOW MUCH education and WHY I value one or the other. Also, slow down if your blocks have an argument or two that needs to be flowed per sentence on the T flow, I'd be lying to you if I said I could flow every little analytic. One nice thing about me is that I have very few predispositions on counterplan theory. Tech your hearts out. I won't be able to evaluate theory well if you don't impact it.
 * Background:**
 * Overview:**
 * Paperless:**
 * K:**
 * DA/Case:**
 * Topicality:**
 * Theory:**

Feel free to ask any questions you have before the round. Also, +.2 speaks if you hate on Alex Kontopoulos. =**LD Paradigm**= I debated circuit LD for Shrewsbury High School from 2011 to 2013. I currently debate policy for Boston College. I am a LD coach at Christopher Columbus High School.
 * Background**:

I will always be tab and will never gut check an argument. If you win the flow you will win the round, so go for whatever you're best at. If you’re unsure about something, ask in the most general sense and I will probably tell you that I won’t intervene. I will evaluate arguments that come logically prior first (i.e. if a debater loses the epistemology that that is the foundation of his/her position, I won't evaluate the position). Break down the round and clearly tell me where you’re winning and why. Don't forget to weigh, good weighing is an easy ballot.
 * Overview**:

If I can’t flow it I will call clear. If I miss something by my own fault, I will call for the card. If I call clear a few times and you don’t slow down, it isn’t my fault. Slower for tags and author names. I can flow all but the very fastest.
 * Speed**:

Be sure to articulate what your arguments exclude and why. Label little spikes to make them easier to flow. If you want to trigger something, I will pull the trigger more easily if you articulate the implication of the spike in the AC or NC. UPDATE: If you're going to read a ton of spikes at the top of the AC and plan on extending them to trigger skep or something, please read them at a flowable rate. I've decided that I won't vote on them if I can't flow them. I'll call clear.
 * Framework**:

I read these positions. I’m a fan and think that breaking down our preconceptions is important. While familiar with a lot of the lit, you should still explain (I only vote on what you read and say). Please understand what your K means. The more relevant your link evidence, the better, and be sure to explain why you outweigh or why the argument should exclude the other advocacy. Better speaks if you have good 'turns case' and solvency takeouts (aff without K reproduces harms of AC even if AC claims to solve, etc) in the K or critical aff. Make sure to have a ballot story.
 * Kritiks**:

I think that skep is a legitimate argument. Almost every dominant philosophy addresses the problem of skepticism in the context of its own ideology, you should know these arguments. I’ll judge on the flow, and won’t feel bad if I can’t evaluate your position because your opponent wins skep. I will judge the skep theory debate on the flow if you really don't want the substantive debate.
 * Skep**:

Theory is fine. Good clarity and organization on the flow will do wonders. I default to competing interpretations, drop the argument unless someone makes an argument that I shouldn’t. You have to read a RVI. Justified/Potential abuse is fine, but give good reasons why it is sufficient. Ask questions about specific stuff before the round. The less work I have to do myself to resolve your theory debate, the higher your speaks. UPDATE: Please weigh your standards, please don't force me to make any intervention.
 * Theory**:

CX is binding.
 * CX**:

I debate policy--just be sure to win the framework because LD doesn’t necessarily default plan. This is the debate that I'm best at judging.
 * Policy Style**:

I like seeing plans read with non-util advocacies, I think that its always strategic to have a plan text.

I enjoy these debates, but will judge them on the flow. This means that I will vote on framework, but won't hack for it. I really lie in the middle of the plan vs planless debacle and so should be a pretty impartial judge here.
 * Performative Affs**:

Have a clear ballot story and it's fine.
 * Micropol**:

Enjoy yourselves, debate was life changing for me, make the most of it.