Maniguet,+Gerritt


 * I debated LD for Timothy Christian School for four years on both my local and the national circuit. I graduated in 2013. I graduated from Baylor University in May 2017 with my B.S. in Mechanical Engineering along with a minor in mathematics. **


 * After my first year out, the only involvement I've had with debate has been judging at Harvard every year. At this point, all technical aspects of debate are far gone from my skill set; as such, it is probably better to just treat me as if I am a traditional judge. Now, you don't have to do this, and I'll do my best to make an objective decision based on the flow. And, I'll leave my old philosophy below in order to leave you with an idea of how I used to view debate. But, treating me as though I'm savvy with current debate trends skyrockets the likelihood that all three of us will be very uncomfortable during the RFD. **


 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy
 * Old Philosophy

Do whatever you want, debate is what you make it. I ran almost every argument type when I debated so I should have some sort of familiarity with, at the very least, how your arguments function. Consequently, I appreciate positions of all kinds, so long as they are thought out and developed- I'm also here to learn. If the position is uncommon and/or dense, you should probably over explain rather than under. If I can’t understand it I can’t vote for it.

By default I'll presume aff if theres no offense in round- neg debaters have an advantage so if both debaters are even at the end the aff did the better debating.

Speed is something you should take with caution. When I was debating I always had trouble getting everything on my flow and now that I'm not at a tournament every weekend my ability to flow isn't getting better, to say the least. Don't let this scare you out of speed, just take me seriously when I say that you need to slow down for short analytics, taglines, T and theory, card authors, and blip spreads. If you don't do this, theres a good chance I'll be extremely confused and make a decision no one will be happy with.

Topicality/Theory, I'll listen to any interpretation you want to run regardless of what it is. I default to competing interpretations, reject the argument on theory but reject the debater on T. I'm more receptive to RVI's on theory than T but i don't have a significant predisposition for or against them. If you make arguments for reasonability it'd be advantageous for you to define the threshold for it to be reasonable. I'll be more receptive to RVI's if theres some sort of offense being generated ie, i'll be less inclined to vote off an RVI where an I meet is won but more inclined to vote off of one where a counter interpretation and turns to the standards are won. I'll listen to fairness and education aren't voters arguments, but I wouldn't suggest making them because they're bad arguments. Offensive counter interpretations probably need an RVI but if your opponent doesn't point that out then it'll slide. *Especially in the case of 1ar theory, everyone needs to slow down. Aff, you really need to give me thorough extensions in the 2ar if you want me to vote off of it because theres so little time to develop the argument, chances are I barely understood it in the 1ar, and I need to understand it to vote off it. Neg, do not, DO NOT answer 1ar theory with a blip spread. I WILL miss MOST of the arguments, and since theres no 3nr I can't catch them when you make extensions.You will be upset with the decision if you do this, and I'll be embarrassed because the RFD will be incoherent. I'm the one at fault here, but I just can't flow theory blip spreads!*

Please be respectful of your opponents and help them learn if they aren’t as experienced as you. Running T on a novice or someone who has never been to a bid tournament before isn’t going to help them learn, please don’t do that.

Speaks are scaled according to the tournament, a 28.5 means I think you should break. Generally I'll determine this through argument quality, technical proficiency, smart strategic decisions, and clarity (speaking, organization, etc.). If you make me laugh I'll be more inclined to give better speaks. If you're a jerk to someone you're clearly better than i will tank your speaks. Obviously, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic etc. or you'll be getting very, very low speaks.