Berryhill,+Anthony

Name: Anthony Berryhill Conflicts: Isidore Newman, none others

Background:
 * 20 years involvement in LD (4 as an LDer for Isidore Newman, 12 as a coach (starting MSJ and Harker circuit squads, 4 in other capacities).
 * Summer camp experience: Head of HR and Senior Instructor for VBI (2015-2017), Previous: NDF, Stanford, Berkeley, NSD, Yale Ivy Scholars and many others I don't recall
 * Former Ph.D. Candidate @ Yale (ABD, MPhil, MA) in contemporary political theory, MBA, BA from Stanford in poli sci/theory, ethics and psychology
 * Currently working in the financial research space, with a focus on Learning & Development and Diversity/Inclusion work in HR.

Preferences: __**If you have specific questions, just ask before the round. Some thoughts are below in case you are interested. Read the delivery part!!!!!**__

Key points:
 * **DELIVERY--REALLY IMPORTANT!**
 * SLOW DOWN **(to about 50% of typical circuit LD speed, fast conversational is about where I can flow**).
 * I cannot flow most circuit LDers' speed or style---most rounds are delivered horribly with a comically bad interpretation of JV style.
 * That said ALL DEBATERS must:
 * SLOW DOWN AND PAUSE ON TAGS AND AUTHOR NAMES - THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL. If you run through all of your speech at full, 400 wpm unclear monotone, I won't be able to flow and may fall asleep
 * In other words, ****deliver your speech so it can be flowable on the first pass.**** I use vocal emphasis and pausing to know what to write down/what's important -- what I can't flow, I won't vote on. This may mean reading less in your AC/N
 * SPEAK LOUDLY ENOUGH TO BE HEARD, START AT A SLOW SPEED and slowly ramp up your speed. T
 * **CONTENT**
 * **ARGUMENT BOUNDARIES:**
 * I am agnostic about political philosophies, literatures, etc. that you use. i.e. RVIs, performance, critiques, critiques of theory, identity arguments are not only OK but welcomed -- go for whatever but justify whatever you do!
 * Exceptions:
 * I will discount arguments of low quality, are poorly explained, have bad evidence or lack depth (and I prioritize arguments which are the opposite)
 * I refuse to vote on skepticism or anything discriminatory (and note: I'm especially open to critiques, turns, etc. that point when this happens and impact it).
 * Note: I am a published intersectionalist, so arguments about marginalization, vulnerability, etc. are taken seriously. I do not "hack" for these arguments and will hold them to the same argumentative and technical standards as other position.
 * Theory is held to a HIGHER standard of quality if you are going for 'drop the debater' or assert it outweighs substance.
 * To win a theory debate in front of me, you'll need to win it on reasonability, proof of abuse...and must explain the argument in simple english (not the wanna-be policy babble in theory blocks in LD).
 * I prefer/especially like:
 * Any argument which is well warranted/explained, consistent with research/literature, contains solid evidence and are intelligent (warning: I wouldn't powertag in front of me...)
 * Careful, well structured and thoughtful crystallization linked to criteria/decision rules. Write the ballot for me. Predict where I could drop you and preempt it.
 * Offensive extensions from case--and if applicable, extending opponents' arguments as links/impacts/impact turns. Arguments which are not extended, imo are dropped from the round
 * Depth of explanation + specific knowledge on a topic. I'm a big nerd so if you somehow bring in other literatures, empirical examples, creative/unique connections between concepts, go for it!
 * Examples:
 * Someone who used string theory to disprove a nanotech plan
 * (In a bid round) Someone who knew the ins and outs of the electoral college and how that disproved their opponents' position on representation
 * Extensive knowledge of a theorist and the context of their positions (historically, vis a vis other traditions)
 * Example of specific knowledge: On the conscription topic, if you knew that the first two weeks of boot camp were the "indoctrination" period and applied that as a link to a militarism k...i'd nod approvingly and add 2 speaks...
 * **JUDGING METHOD:**
 * __**I default to a standard-extensions-weighing view of debate.**__
 * Arguments must be clearly signposted, extended and weighed/linked to a decision rule (criteria, roles of the ballot, whatever) in order to be part of my decision calculus.
 * I don't care what structure you use, just give me a mechanism for deciding the round and link your arguments to it explicitly.
 * I also don't care about the type of decision rule you use. In my mind: "role of the ballot" = "criterion" = "standard" = "framework".
 * A decision rule is just a decision rule. i.e. "He doesn't have a role of the ballot" does not count as an argument in front of me.
 * Debaters who put in the effort to explain their arguments clearly, in English, and with depth/technical clarity will be rewarded with high speaker points and a much stronger chance I'll vote for them.
 * Fair warning: I have a "no hacking policy." Your summer camp affiliation, coach rep, how many bids you have, etc. don't matter to me. People who assume the opposite have been bitterly disappointed.
 * __**Know this: All students deserve an equal chance to win the round and I will always (and have always) judged accordingly.**__
 * **IN ROUND BEHAVIOR**
 * NO POST-ROUNDING: Asking questions is fine, but given my extensive academic experience it's unlikely you'll say something I won't understand (unless you didn't explain it in English the first time, see the "DELIVERY" section).
 * I have no patience for bullying or immature behavior (from students or coaches), or being cross examined and will swiftly and harshly correct such behavior if it occurs. Be professional.
 * TECH ETIQUETTE: It is your responsibility to get your tech in order. Computers not working, issues with flashing files, getting the "blue screen of death", etc. are not excuses for holding the round up/getting the tab room to yell at me.
 * This means:
 * I won't vote for disclosure theory....let's just get that out of the way.
 * I will start speech time if you are not being respectful of the judge/tournament/opponent's time.
 * Handle your disclosure BEFORE the round start time, or by the end of your prep (or if you are going to share a file after calling prep, get that done within 10 seconds). Making a round delay by 2-3 minutes on tech will not be tolerated.
 * Sloppy or irresponsible methods of disclosure will be harshly penalized, and maybe with a loss. This includes: giving your opponent unreadable/inaccurate disclosures, impossible to read files, giving your opponent files and then making them decipher out what you read/didn't read etc. Again, be professional.

In sum, I'll vote for the debater who effectively articulates a framework and/or decision rule and shows how their arguments (factoring in: turns, weighing, clear/effective delivery, intelligent analysis/research, depth / creativity of arguments, crystallization) outweigh the arguments their opponent may be winning relative to that decision rule.


 * You'll love/like me as a judge if:** you want a fair chance to win the round, you like making intelligent, well delivered (and creative) arguments. You care about the arguments you run or at least in arguing them well.


 * You should strike me if:** you are incomprehensible and are proud of it (i.e. refuse to adapt). You may expect a judge to hack for your school/rep/position. Your strategy is to turn every round into a theory war. You tend to like intimidating opponents/judge, or believe/argue bigoted stuff.