Lucibella,+Chris

I debated for Needham High School, and graduated in 2007.

In general, I'll vote for anything so long as it's well-warranted and intelligibly articulated. I will vote on theory, but if it's poorly run you'll have a hard time convincing me of it and this will be reflected in your speaker points as well. I do vote on RVIs, again if they're well-run.

I don't require a strict value/criterion structure, but some voting calculus in the constructive is necessary, and linking back to this throughout the round is mandatory to win. I won't do work for the debaters at the end of the round, so you should make the impacts crystal clear for me.

I will vote on kritikal arguments, and typically find that they make for a more interesting round, again so long as they're well crafted. That being said, I'd rather see a clear, well-reasoned stock case than a muddled but creative argument. One important note about kritical arguments is that I expect you to have read the literature you're citing; I'm well enough versed in contemporary philosophy that I can tell when you're being disingenuous to an author, and I won't be inclined to vote for you if you misrepresent someone's work.

I'm ok with speed on balance, but never at the expense of clarity. If it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't vote for it. My speaker point range is typically 25-30, if you go below that it's because I've taken serious offense at something you said, and I'll let you know after the round.