Hernandez,+Edward


 * Experience:** I was a Policy debater for a year. I am now an APDA debater. I've been judging LD, PF, and Policy for a year, now. I'm a Linguistics/Philosophy double major at the College of William & Mary


 * Speed:** Go for it. I absolutely don't care how fast you speak so long as you're understandable. Slow down or enunciate more for signposting and taglines.

Policy/CX style args are permissible, but prepare to defend yourself on theory if your opponent argues against them. Also, link your DA, CP, or K to the specific aff, not just the resolution.
 * LD Paradigm:** If you don't run theory devaluing the V/VC paradigm, value clash is preeminent on legacy. Anything can win the ballot if you convince me it's key. Only things said in round are flowed, and only the way you tell me to flow them, so tell me how, and tell me if you're cross-applying args.


 * Policy Paradigm:** K paradigm clash comes off the top. If you don't give me a reason to pref the squo paradigm, K almost certainly wins. I vote on what's said in round, and I flow things how you tell me: so tell me if you're cross-applying cards or args, and make your advocacy clear.


 * Theory:** I will entertain any theory you run. If you don't do it well, you're wasting your time though, so be careful. Don't claim fairness or abuse on theory grounds unless it's blatant.


 * Roll of the Ballot:** Convince me that your world is preferable to your opponents world. Else, convince me why your role of the ballot is superior.


 * Disclosure:** If the tournament allows, I'll disclose with a brief rationale. Debaters are welcome to ask any questions they have.