Massac,+Daiya

I debated for The Bronx High School of Science for three years (2011-14). I debated on the national circuit primarily. I qualified to the TOC my senior year. My primary debate influences are Matt Dunay, Abhi Elisetty, Zeke Rosenberg, and Griffin Lee Miller. I now coach for Scarsdale High School.

(Updated for bronx) Larpers: 1 K debaters: 1-2 (depending on the type of K) Theory debaters: 1-3 (depending on your strats against the K) Tricks: 1-2 if you are willing to change up against the K and you should strike me if you aren't Framework debaters: 3-strike Generic circuit: 2-3
 * //Pref shortcut://**

//**Short:**// I am fine with any argument as long as it is explained well and is delivered at a reasonable speed and clarity. Debate is yours so do what you want and I will try to evaluate whatever it is you do to the best of my ability. I reserve the right to refuse to vote for an argument that I believe to be excessively offensive or stupid. SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS, AUTHOR NAMES, ANY TEXT(Plans, CP, Interp, etc), AND ANALYTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * //Longer://**
 * Policy arguments:** I think this is probably the debate I am best at evaluating. My favorite debate to watch is a plan versus CP debate so if that happens I'll probably be willing to inflate speaks. Don't like condo unless your one other option is the status quo but that's just an opinion and will only really matter if the condo good/bad debate gets messy. Same goes for PICs and analytic perms. I especially like plans that don't stick to the traditional Util fw.


 * Ks:** probably second best at evaluating this style of debate. When evaluating K debates I expect to see a ROTB that I can use as a filter to evaluate offense so if you are going to conceded your opponents ROTB please explicitly explain to me why your offense still matters. Do not assume that I am familiar with your literature base so you should err on the side of over explaining arguments. I think K's pertaining to issues of oppression should //usually// have some sort of concrete method attached or at the very least a explanation of an advocacy that I can vote for. As a judge I feel like I tend to vote for the K more then any other argument but I think that's just because y'all think they are the only arguments I like which is false.


 * Theory:** I presume Competing interps, I meets are terminal defense, no RVIs, and drop the arg. Education is probably not a voter for theory in my opinion but its whatever. I dislike metatheory and having to hear more then 2 shells per side in a round. I hate blip storms on theory and will not hesitate to ignore your arguments if I think you are doing it to purposefully screw over your opponent's flowing.


 * Philosophy:** Not very good at evaluating this style of debate. Did not do it too much when I debated so I am probably not the judge for your if dense framework debates are your go to strategy.


 * Tricks:** I like tricks and am willing to vote on them if they are clever. If the implication of the argument you are making during the rebuttal was not in the initial speech then it is a new/contestable argument.


 * Performance:** I think performance arguments are fine but they need to be impacted to a ROTB. If you go for performative DA on a ROTB that doesn't take into account performance then the argument probably doesn't matter absent some quality analysis. I think if you are running a performance then you probably shouldn't get access to PICs, some perms, condo, or the luxury of kicking arguments but I won't ignore said arguments unless your opponent makes the argument.

- Ks versus theory: To be honest I think I am slightly biased for the K in this debate (60-40). I have voted for Theory before the K a ton though so if you want to run theory do it well. I think fairness being subjective is probably true and most theory arguments against the K are silly. - Won't evaluate screenshots of anything - I think disclosure is good and am happy to vote off of disclosure theory - If you are a dope debater hitting a novice or a sophomore then you may want to refrain from running your most complex position and act in a way that makes the round fun and educational for both parties. If I think you are being mean then i will not hesitate to drop you. - I have a short attention span during CX and flex prep so if you want me to listen to a specific question/answer MAKE SURE I AM LISTENING!!!! I wont be offended if you just ask me to pay attention. - If a debate gets too muddled on a layer PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the argument that I should ignore that layer. I probably will anyways but its always cool to be able to say that I was evaluating an argument rather then straight up intervention. - I think I am a speaker fairy but you can decide for yourself. Here is a rough guide for how I assign speaks. 30- I enjoyed the round. 29- bid round 28-clear 27- 3-3 low 4-2 26- needs some work 25- RUDE
 * misc.**

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask Mark Gorthey, or Abhi Elisetty before the round or email Mark Gorthey at mkg2146@columbia.edu You can also ask Rahul Gosain but be warned as whatever he has to say about my judging abilities will probably bring you more discomfort and fear than peace of mind.