Kim,+Ashley

I debated for four years for Timothy Christian School and graduated in 2014.

I value substance and clash(engaging with and actually addressing the warrant of your opponent's argument, weighing, etc.) I'll evaluate any argument or position as long as it's well-warranted and you give me a working method of evaluation. You can ask me about my familiarity with specific types of arguments before the debate starts if you want to make sure. Theory is fine as long as you prove that there is actual abuse in the round.

Framework debates are good as long as they're necessary. As I hinted above, I like having a method of evaluation (a lot). If you and your opponent's frameworks are slightly different but similar enough, I'd rather you link your impacts to both frameworks as you extend rather than waste time arguing why the wording makes a significant difference in what you're trying to accomplish in the round.

I assign speaker points on a 25-30 point scale. Speaker points will reflect how I perceived your ability to make and extend effective arguments, and strategize overall. (25 - completely unprepared, 26 - below average, 27 - average, 28 - good, 29 - very well-done, 30 - excellent; offensive arguments may go below a 25)

Good arguments and extensions include a claim, warrant(s), and impact(s). I'll give some leeway to aff extensions, but they must include more than the label ("the value criterion," "Contention 2," "the impact," "[insert card name]").

If you are a more experienced debater obviously facing a novice or non-native English speaker, and I detect abuse (spreading, tricks, etc.), this will reflect in your speaks.

Spreading is fine. Start slow then speed up. Slow down for tags and card names and anything you really want me to understand. I'll say clear if I don't understand you, and if I say it twice you should consider permanently slowing down.