Protter,+Connor

__Background__: I debated LD for Princeton High School from 2011-2015. I broke at a bunch of national tournaments and went to the Newark Round Robin.

__Judging conflicts__: Princeton High School

//**Update for Princeton Classic:**//


 * Keep in mind that it’s most likely been several months if not longer since I last flowed a round, or heard spreading, so please go a little slower. **

__The short version__: I’ll do my best to objectively evaluate the round. Weighing and extensions are a must. Most straightforward debate arguments are going to be okay to read in front of me, but you’ll have to read the long version to figure out which ones I like the most and least.

__The long version__:

__Speed__: I’ve never been the best at flowing by ear, so please slow down on taglines, author names, interps, plan texts, and the like. I’ll call out clear twice, and then start dropping speaks. Also, signpost.

__Theory__: I read a lot of theory as a debater, so I’m cool with it. However, there are a couple of things that need clarification:
 * I think OCIs absolutely require an RVI. You can read reasons why they don’t, but absent said justifications, I’m probably not going to buy it
 * I’m cool with most theory interps (AFC, must have counter solvency advocate, etc.) but if you’re unsure if you can read it, feel free to check with me before the round
 * Don’t just say their interp is frivolous, actually do the work to show why it’s bad
 * If you’re intending to read multiple shells, try not to read more than 3, since that’s pretty much my threshhold
 * For extending theory, please explicitly extend each part (the voters, drop the arg/debater, etc.), otherwise I don’t know what to do with it

__Disclosure Theory__: I’m not particularly partial towards this argument, and I tend to not like it since it’s always poorly read. However, if you choose to read it in front of me, the burden of proof is 100% on you- don’t ask me to check the NDCA wiki to confirm a violation. The burden of proving that they violated the interp is on you, whether that be through asking them in cx or screenshotting an image of the disclosure page. If you can provide some substantive proof in round that they violate, then by all means, read it in front of me. That being said, I’m going to be more sympathetic to you reading it against certain arguments (narratives, plans/CPs, etc.). Like with all theory shells, ** if you can justify why it matters, I’ll go for it. **

__Policy style arguments__: I never read these types of arguments that often, so I’m not the best at evaluating them. You can read them in front of me for sure, but my flow might get muddled with jargon I’m not accustomed to. Also, keep in mind that I’ve probably not read or heard much of the topic literature if I’m judging, so if your plan text is super unique, make sure you slow down for it.

__Ks__: I’d like to preface this with saying that if you read Ks as a major part of your strategy, I’m probably not the best judge for you- I strongly believe that theory comes first, and although I’ll absolutely listen to reasons for why it doesn’t, they need to be well justified. I’m also not well immersed at all in the literature, so if you do choose a read a K, please make sure you’re explaining the cards/authors.

__Tricks/spikes in the 1AC__: I’m cool with them, but if you’re intending to read them in front of me then please don’t make them super hidden. If I can’t find where the spike is on my flow, I’m not going to evaluate it. For example, if you’re extending single sentences out as takeouts to the NC, I’m probably not going to enjoy it. In those cases, it’s probably safer to over-explain rather than under-explain the arguments that you’re extending. Also, I’m going to be pretty lenient on the responses to blips, since reading 1,000 spikes and then extending each one as a reason to affirm or not negate is pretty cheesy. I also default to presuming aff, but I’ll absolutely listen to reasons why I should presume neg.

__Skepticism__: I’m generally going to be fine with you reading skep as a strategy, just make sure you’re explaining the warrants for it.

__Role of the Ballot__: If you’re going to read one, please warrant it well. I’ve seen a lot of poorly justified role of the ballots, so if you’re intending to read one, make sure it’s well warranted.

__CX/Speeches__: You can sit, you can stand, you can lay on the floor, and if you can do a handstand for the better half of one of your speeches, you’ll get a 30 (Nobody has ever done this in front of me). Also, if you want flex prep, please ask your opponent before the round or before the first prep time. I’m okay with it if they are.

__Flashing__: I never flashed cases as a debater, and I’m opposed to the practice, so I’m sympathetic to debaters who say no to flashing. However, if your opponent flashes to you, you must reciprocate.

__Extensions__: One thing that I don’t like that debaters do is simply say “My opponent conceded x argument!” and treat that as an extension. If you’re extending arguments in front of me, please make the extension explicit, such as “My opponent concedes x argument, extend the warrant or whatever”. Also, 1AR extensions have a lower threshold than 2NR extensions, generally.

__Speaks__: Based on the rounds that I’ve judged before, my average speaks is probably 28. If you’re getting a 28.5 from me, I’d like to see you break, whilst a 29-29.5 means you should break far, and a 30 means you should either win the tournament or can do a killer handstand (see above).

__Things I like__: __Things I don’t like__:
 * Debaters with senses of humor. If you can make me laugh (with you, not at you), you’ll probably get higher speaks.
 * Debaters who time themselves
 * Creative positions
 * Debaters who look at my facial expressions and change what they’re doing in accordance
 * Short speeches because you’ve won already
 * Non-topical Ks- I believe that the debate needs to have some basis in the topic, so if you’re not going to be topical, I’m going to be severely hard pressed to vote for you. If you can provide a warrant for why the topic has to be rejected, then I’ll evaluate it, but keep in mind that the threshold for these types of arguments is really high. That also means that justifying why the issue can be topically discussed is sufficient for me, as long as you can justify why we should reject the K.
 * Narratives- I don’t like this type of argument, and I have a pretty low threshold for what constitutes a counter narrative. If you read a haiku as a counter narrative, I’ll probably buy it.
 * Debaters who are rude.
 * If it’s a national tournament and you know you’re better than your opponent, please don’t do overkill or anything like that. Don’t ruin the experience for them.
 * If you have questions about my decision, ask me about it. If you don’t like my decision, don’t argue it, don’t try to negotiate with me.
 * Insulting your opponent, or me.
 * I’m generally lenient with making arguments, but please don’t make blatantly repulsive arguments (I think you know exactly what arguments I’m talking about, and you can ask me if you don’t, but you do).
 * Talking during your opponent’s prep with the intent to distract them.
 * Drinking water after someone asks you a question in CX specifically to waste time before answering.
 * People who watch prelims without the explicit permission of both debaters.
 * Debaters who are unnecessarily aggressive. It’s a high school debate round. Chill.
 * Bad puns.
 * Opening quotes as leverageable offense.

I think that’s everything, but please contact me via Facebook or email (princetoncp@gmail.com) if you have any questions or concerns.