Sussman,+Oliver

= = Cambridge Rindge and Latin '17 Harvard '21 Conflicts: Harker, CRLS

Hey! I debated in policy for 1.5 years and LD for 2.5 years on the national circuit. This is my first year judging.

***Mid-Harvard 2018 Edits***

 * Seriously you guys have no idea how hard your speeches are to flow without looking at the speech doc. Please be particularly clear on analytics and tags that have important warrants/weighing in them, unless you just want me to flow the one-word label of all your arguments.
 * I still like theory but I'm starting to understand why a lot of judges don't. Y'all literally only go for theory in front of me so I'm getting kind of bored -- make your theory strategy interesting!
 * Try to avoid signposting by referencing author names because I'm horrible at flowing those.


 * __General__**
 * I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible. Do what you want, except oppression impact turns and the like. I have a strong appreciation for LD’s diversity of argumentation; I myself was pretty K as a sophomore, policy as a junior, and framework/theory as a senior. I like it when debaters are flex and show strategic diversity.
 * I default to whatever evaluative paradigm seems to be assumed by both debaters. If this is unclear, I will use truth-testing. I default presume neg.
 * Prep ends when you're done assembling your speech doc (flashing isn't prep, but you CANNOT compile everything into one document outside of prep).
 * I don't flow off of speech docs because I think debate should actually be a spoken activity. So please be clear.


 * __Theory__**
 * I like theory as a strategic tool and don’t care if it’s frivolous (unless you read a silly shell when you could have read a much better one—that’s just unstrategic).
 * I default fairness is a voter and education is not, drop the arg (except for T and things for which drop the arg makes no sense), competing interps, and no RVIs.
 * You don’t need to extend the text of your interp/counter-interp or paradigm issues accepted by both debaters in front of me.
 * Sometimes it's smart to just read quick drop the arg theory in the 1AR, on the same sheet as the argument itself.
 * I like disclosure theory (except against inexperienced debaters).


 * __Framework__**
 * Philosophy is good! I probably think this kind of debate is best, but also often the least resolvable. Please explain why your preclusion/weighing args outweigh your opponent’s preclusion/weighing args, not just the framework justifications themselves. Also, please extend actual warrants—this rarely happens.
 * I default ethical confidence.


 * __CP/DA__**
 * Obviously these are cool. I have a soft spot in my heart for sketchy process CPs and PICs. I think a lot of the weighing arguments that people make in policy—like sufficiency framing, uniqueness controls link, etc.—are very helpful, and should be used more in LD.
 * Always read impact defense/deny terminal uniqueness.
 * Perms are a test of competition by default.


 * __Kritiks__**
 * They’re fine. Bad K debate is quite unfortunate. Please explain and warrant arguments well. Having said that, I am probably more likely than other judges to pull the trigger on technical drops/K tricks like floating PIK, alt solves case, value to life, etc.
 * I certainly won’t intervene against untopical affs, but I'm somewhat biased against them.
 * I don't really like high theory. You can run it, but bear in mind that I can usually barely understand the tags and just write down a bunch of random buzzwords I hear. I am much more favorable toward K's like cap, security, and identity-based positions.


 * __Tricks__**
 * I’ll vote on any of them if I flow them. I really might not flow them though, because I’ve like, never judged before. If your tricks are just boring and obnoxious I'll probably be sad, but if you've come up with something genuinely creative I might be intrigued.


 * __Speaks__**
 * I’ll try to average a 28. I don’t love inflation, but I won’t be too annoying. 30 is literal perfection (i.e. probably will never happen). I will try to avoid assigning speaks based on pure speaking ability, or personal ideology.
 * You're one person -- make your first person pronouns singular, please & thank you <3