Kelly,+Parker

** Brief Background: **
I debated at Houston Memorial for 3 years (2 in VLD), consistently making late outrounds at locals my junior and senior years. On the national circuit I attended 16 bid tournaments over 2 years, clearing at 11 and reaching the bid round at UT, St. Marks, and Vestavia Hills.

If you want an idea of how my views have been shaped, I was coached by Jacob Nails, Adam Calhoun, Hunter Lewis, and Cecil Trent. I think all of them have paradigms up and my views align most closely with Jacob.

If you want to know what I read, here’s my senior year wiki (if this gets reset I’ll try to find a new one or you can just ask me)

http://hsld15.debatecoaches.org/Memorial/

** Defaults: **
I want to stress that if you make me vote on a default you have already messed up. A lot. These are not really preferences just what I think makes sense logically absent argumentation.

No RVIs Reasonability Theory comes b4 K T comes b4 Theory Potential abuse is sufficient for me to pull the trigger on theory Drop the arg on Theory, Drop the debater on T Presumeption flows Aff

Things I think may not be the norm:
Dropped claims aren't true, dropped warrants are – ask before round if u don’t know what I mean

Confidence over modesty – to justify modesty I want a real metric to weigh under modesty explicitly given in round.

I will only call for cards if the text of them is challenged by your opponent or if I am extremely confused. If I have to call it for confusion, your speaks will drop quickly. It is your job to communicate the warrants of the card during your speeches, not mine to decipher it afterwards.

Speaks:
I will try to average about a 28.

Speaks for me are about persuasion. You may not have the best arguments going into the round but if you can use them successfully and strategically your speaks will improve dramatically. Your speaks won’t be helped or hurt based on how fast you can spread. As long as you’re clear feel free to go any speed you like.

I will say clear 3 times. After that I'll stop so hopefully I can understand you.

30 – Perfect round. You allocated time well, went for the right arguments, and were clear throughout. (At national circuit tournaments these will be quite rare) 29 – You had a good round with minor mistakes strategically or some clarity issues. 28 – This was an average round. Mistakes in either clarity, strategy, or both kept this from being more impressive 27 – This round had some issues. It’s likely that I had to yell clear multiple times or that you made multiple wrong choices in strategy. 26 – You did not have a good round. Your strategy was lacking and clarity could have been much better 25 – I couldn’t understand almost anything you said 24 or less – you were openly offensive in some way or you ignored when I said clear multiple times

Please try to avoid racist, sexist, homophobic, or other offensive language, regardless of the race/gender/sexuality of your opponent or your judge (I'm a white male so you probably won't offend me personally but that doesn't mean the language is not still offensive).

Quick Prefs:
I did all styles of LD in high school except tricks really, so do what you’re most comfortable with. Speed is probably 7/10, SLOW DOWN ON TAGS.

These ratings are based solely on ability to evaluate. 1 is fully confident, 5 is no experience or very uncertain.

Lay – 1 Policy/LARP – 1 Theory – 2 Analytic Phil/Framework – 3 Traditional K (Cap, anthro, afropess, etc.) – 3 Weird K (Bataille, Heidegger, etc.) – 4 Baudrillard and DnG* - 5 * This is directed at one of you in particular, and you know who you are. Read it at your own risk. You have been warned. J Tricks – 5 (Please slow down if this is you)

All K ratings apply to K affs in that same category as well.

Lay:
Do it if you want. I know what I’m doing, it’ll be fine. Also I really don’t care about the value. It’s unimportant and if you spout off 15 arguments about why justice is more important than morality I will feel morally justified in ignoring all of them in my decision. (I may have stolen that joke but I honestly can’t remember).

LARP/Policy args:
Love them. Plans are fun, especially if it’s unique, well-researched, and a genuinely good idea. CPs are cool. DAs are cool. PICs are cool. I read all of these a ton my senior year, I’ll be fine to evaluate any of them.

One caveat – I’m not a huge fan of Politics DAs and someone with a decent knowledge of our political system will be able to beat them analytically in front of me a lot, but if you can write a good one please read it. I’ve seen and lost to a few that were very good and I know they’re very strategic.

Theory:
I read a lot of theory as a debater but in general I think people read it too frivolously. I think I have a high threshold for my definition of “frivolous” (like I think an actor spec shell isn’t frivolous but must spec counter-ethical theory in the NC probably is). However, I understand the strategic value of theory and won’t dock speaks just because I personally disagree with the interp or think the abuse is super minimal. One comment, based on my experience – you are much better off reading one, well-developed (and maybe even carded) shell than extemping 4 bad ones.

Read metatheory if you want. I’ve read and answered it several times.

I prefer counter-interp debates if possible, they are much easier to resolve and often much more fleshed out debates.

If you prefer reasonability, do it but your brightlines should be very specific AND well warranted. Specific request – define structural abuse if u read it as a brightline, I’ve seen it defined multiple ways and it can get a bit confusing.

Traditional K:
Assume I know nothing. I’ve read and heard all the generic stuff so I’ll get it generally but explaining it well will help you a ton.

Link to the aff not the topic (obviously if they defend the rez generally you don’t have a problem)

I'm not a fan of links of omission. I'll certainly still vote on them, just know that I have a higher threshold on these than other links/arguments in general.

Weird K:
I have very little experience reading or hitting this lit, but if you can explain it feel free to read it. I was good friends with several debaters who read this stuff so I’m more open to it than a lot of people who read as much LARP and theory as I did.

Once again, link to the aff not the rez and have as few links of omission as possible.

Role of the Ballot Stuff:
Applies to all Ks you read – please warrant a role of the ballot, explain why whatever your ROB is is the only thing we should care about, and most importantly be clear about how weighing works under it. If you make me do the work for what counts as the best strategy to combat oppression or any other method of evaluation I won’t do you any favors.

Analytic Phil/Framework:
Go for it if you’re confident in your skills. I’ve read a decent mix (some Kant, some intuitions/sentimentalism stuff, some virtue ethics, and plenty of other random frameworks too). Please be very clear when explaining complex frameworks, as you will usually need me to understand it to have any chance at winning the round.

I don’t mind whether your framework is card heavy or has primarily analytics as long as it’s well warranted and explained.

Have an explicit standard text and explain how I should weigh.

Tricks:
I’m going to be completely honest – I have very little experience reading or hitting tricks and I am not a huge fan of the strat overall. However, I would certainly vote for you as long as you won on the flow and I will not dock speaks just because you debate differently than I did. PLEASE MAKE YOUR SPIKES AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.

Extra Notes:
This section will be updated based on what I see in rounds and anything I find lacking later