Lee,+Christi

**Background:** I debated LD for Lexington High School from 2013-2017 on the local and National Circuit and debate PF at a few tournaments. I am currently a student at Harvard College.

**Overview:** When I was a debater, I mostly ran cases on topical prep and discussion. I like substance. I usually only engaged in T or theory debates as a check on abuse, and occasionally I ran theory as a time suck or a purely strategic tool. During my junior and senior year, I started to venture more into critical arguments, particularly around rhetoric and how we talk about and describe different forms of oppression since our word choice and communication is key in debate. At the same time, I’m also not a fan of debate moving towards commodification of the ballot with critical arguments - if you don’t believe in the message of your K and just want the ballot, I’ll be personally disappointed, but will just objectively as a judge.

That being said, while I understand traditional and critical arguments and will vote on pretty much anything that is well explain, like any judge, you should not assume I know what you are talking about when you use big words or jargon. The literature is constantly changing, so many sure you fully explain your arguments.

**Speed:** I am fine with speed, but you must be clear and/or slow down for author names. If you are speeding through an AC with spikes and hidden a prioris, it probably makes the most sense to clearly label or at least transition between these arguments. I will say “clear” twice, then I will dramatically lower your speaks.

**Theory/T:** Given the choice I would like the round to have some degree of substantive clash. I strongly believe that there are diminishing strategic returns after a debater reads two shells, and will start to get annoyed during the third, just be strategic with Theory/T. All interpretations need to be read slowly, and need to be written out for me to read.

**Framework** I usually debated framework stuff (mostly util). I am not the most well read person ever, but I understand the foundations of most frameworks. Please slow down if your argument is super dense and/or obscure. Also, I need explicitly explained what sorts of offense link to your standard. Wasn’t a huge fan of skep, but if well explained, I’m fine with it.

**Arguments I will not vote on:**
 * Arguments that take fewer than 3 sentences to develop. I feel like past this point an argument probably has a warrant somewhere in there, and with fewer than three sentences there isn’t sufficient argument generation for me to feel comfortable voting off of it.
 * Disclosure theory if the person it is being run on is not running a plan/cp.
 * Flash drive theory.
 * Any arguments that I know to be factually untrue. I do not care if your opponent drops them.

<span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">**Presumption / Tricks / Skep:** <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">Not a huge fan because I feel like there’s probably a risk of offense somewhere but if not, I will vote off presumption/tricks/skep.

<span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">**In round decorum:**
 * <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">I reserve the right to end a round early and drop a debater for being excessively rude, homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. or for doing anything that makes either me or your opponent personally uncomfortable.
 * <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">Don’t run theory (or any not immediately accessible argument for that matter) on a novice/sophomore/local debater who clearly has no idea what they are doing if you are a circuit debater. This is just mean. If you are as good as you think you are, you should be able to beat a novice in an educational way that makes your opponent want to stay in this activity rather than crush their spirit.
 * <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">CX is binding.
 * <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">I don’t care if you sit or stand
 * <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">I don’t care if you read off a laptop or paper. However if you are reading off a laptop and your opponent requests to see your case, please either have a paper copy for your opponent, flash your case to your opponent, or let your opponent have your laptop during CX and their prep time.
 * <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">Don’t ask me questions during the round.

<span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">**Speaks:** <span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">Speaks are determined based upon in round strategy and style. Lower than a 26: you did something offensive (ie were racist, homophobic, sexist or in any other way derogatory, OR you egregiously violated my paradigm). 27: mediocre job. 27.5: average. 28: solid performance. 28.5: you should clear. 29: you were great. >29, I expect you to be in deep outrounds! I will only give a 30 to a debater who I think should win the whole tournament

<span style="color: #454545; font-family: &#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;; font-size: 12px;">**Feel free to ask any questions before the round! Have fun!**