Ati,+Shomik

__**UPDATE for 2017: I haven't judged in a little over a year, so please don't go your top speed. start a little slow and then pick up. Please slow down for taglines and card names. **__

I debated for four years at Plano East Senior High School (TX) I debated extensively on the national and local texas circuit. A lot of my debate philosophy is shaped by my coaches Rohun Ati, Dylan Cavanaugh, and Quaram Robinson:

I expect the aff to present an advocacy, and the neg to clash with that advocacy. I'll evaluate the round based on the arguments you make, and your explanation of why that means you win the round. How you do this (standards, framework, implicit post fiat utility, whatever) is up to you. You will likely end up with excellent speaks if you **(1) do great evidence/analytic comparison, (2) do some solid weighing, and (3) lay out a coherent decision calculus. As long as you do these things, feel free to debate however is most comfortable for you. I want you to constantly give me status updates and implications for each extension.**

**Speed:** Slow down for authors and tags. No matter who is flowing, the faster you go, the more stuff is going to be missed, just keep this in mind. I evaluate speaker points based on the tournament. If I think you should win the tournament or make deep out rounds, you will be at a 29.5 and up.

**Speaks:** I think i'm generous for the most part with speaks. Don't be a dick and you'll get high speaks. As long as you are strategic and doing great evidence comparison/weighing.

**Theory:** I'm cool with T/Theory. I read T a lot as a debater. However if your opponent reads an identity position of some sort.. please do NOT resort to theory. There are better ways to engage the positions. **I will vote on disclosure theory - debaters should disclose.**

1. No 2AR Theory 2. I default to competing interps/drop the debater on theory and T. I am willing to listen to reasons why reasonability o/w 3. If you say that you should have access to an RVI, tell me what constitutes an RVI. I generally do not accept "I meets" as a reason to access an RVI, but feel free to change my min

**Framework:** I'm open to most framework arguments as long as the function is clearly explained. I would prefer some sort of weighing mechanism I can use to evaluate arguments. Whether that is a Role-of-the-Ballot or a normative framework that's fine. Although, I would prefer a substantive debate over framework anyway.

That was pretty much me...so I'm cool with these types of arguments. Make sure you do TONS and TONS of weighing it've very important!
 * Policy Arguments: **

**DA/CP:** I dont have much to say here. These are cool with me. Just give me a clear story telling me what is going on.

**K's:** I love critical arguments. If it is something dense just make sure you slow down a little and clearly explain what is going on.

**Performance/Methods Debate:** I love these debates and am pretty confident in adjudicating them. Just be very clear about what my role as a judge is and what my ballot does to impact the change.

**Tricks/Presumption/Skep:** Nah


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I won't vote on anything that justifies why oppression is good. If you read arguments like racism good or sexism good, I will drop you with 0 speaks. **