Mahoney,+Patrick

Debated in high school LD for four years for Strake Jesuit, where I focused primarily on national-circuit/TOC-level tournaments (finals at Greenhill / Bronx Science / UT and broke at the TOC and won a lot of bids along the way). Debating for Stanford, I did college policy for a year, competing primarily in CA and going to CEDA nationals. I'm essentially tab but because I do also balance that with a non-specific presumption about the educational nature of the activity, there are a couple of key points to pay attention to.

General/Argumentation: I'm pretty //tabula rasa// in that I'll look to any style or type of debate -- if it's successfully argued and defended, I will accept it. But I'll need to hear why. In cases which fall outside of the v/vc and/or standards debate, you'll also need well-formed and well-defended framework for arguing outside of that. If you're going for more policy-type or discursively-evaluated or any type of a priori arguments, explain //why// I'm looking to your chosen evaluative meta-framework and //how// it factors into and/or is cont my decision. This is not just initially, but defended over the course of the round. I need to know how I'm ordering and writing my ballot, so I consider weighing (between frameworks!) //crucial// to predictable decisions.

Technical/Evidence: If you're going for it, theory needs an articulation of abuse. I am o.k. with speed, but you have to be o.k. with me slowing you down if you're going too quickly for the level of detail you're trying to impart. This shouldn't at all be an issue if I'm judging you for LD. But for those policy rounds between faster teams, I might want you to read slower the most relevant parts of the tags, and pronounce clearly your authors. I'll make it clear if you're not doing this. But if you could've avoided this scenario, and yet I find myself facing an unnecessarily fat stack of called-for cards, I'll make your speaks lower.

Ok, I think that gets everything. I can answer more specific questions.