Dahms,+Tim

ayyy lmao


 * Background**: I debated for 3 years at Fayetteville High School in Arkansas and I now attend the University of Arkansas.


 * General Stuff:** I'll listen to any argument as long as it's sufficiently warranted out. I want to hear teams engage in each others' arguments in a meaningful way. I'm a stickler for organization and jumping around the flow will greatly impact my ability to evaluate your argument. All of that being said, I'm most interested in hearing an interesting or unique argument or strategy, so don't be afraid to get outside of the box. I really like complicated neg strategies. Impact turns are the bomb - dedev, spark, wipeout, and others are all game. Speak as fast as you want but slow down on the tags as I haven't had the chance to judge a ton of rounds this year. Don't read new arguments in the 2NC. Only defend one advocacy in the 2NR. I stop prep when the flash drive is pulled from the computer; taking a ton of time to flash speeches is a good way to get your speaks docked. Open CX is fine but don't talk over each other.


 * Theory/Framework:** Framework is one of my favorite parts of debate because it allows us to determine the rules of the game we're playing as we're playing it. I'll default to a utilitarian policymaker framework in the absence of an explicit ballot framing argument, but feel free to frame the round in whatever way you like. Tell me how to judge the round. Theory is dope as long as you have a very organized line-by-line or it'll be tough for me to keep up. Don't spread through theory blocks like they're cards, if you want me to write down everything in your theory block you need to slow down.


 * Topicality:** Like any other argument, I want to see it impacted out properly. If you plan on going for it, the 2NR should be 5 minutes of T. I default to reasonability on T, but I can certainly be persuaded to use competing interps. If you can defend its untopicality, an aff certainly does not have to be topical.


 * DAs/CPs:** I love an interesting DA/CP combo. On DAs, a case-specific disad shows you've done your research and I'm a fan. Politics is cool. I lean aff on the theoretical legitimacy of Agent/Consult/Condition CPs but don't let that deter you. Slow way down on the CP text.


 * Kritiks: ** I like K's a lot; they can be an opportunity to discuss issues not often touched upon in debate rounds. They can also be opportunities for teams to drown their opponents in jargon and poorly-explained high theory. If you're going to read a K, have a thorough understanding of your argument and be able to sufficiently explain it without relying on buzzwords. Be able to defend why it's competitive with the affirmative plan. That being said, I'm familiar with the majority of kritikal lit so feel free to run any argument you're comfortable with.


 * K Affs: ** I like K affs; use the position of the affirmative for whatever ends you see fit. Performance is fair game, but I do want to hear an explanation of /warranted arguments for the K in later speeches. K affs that swing between pure argument and performance are my favorite. On F/W, I've voted about 50/50 as to whether or not K affs are theoretically legitimate. So take from that what you will.

**Don't:**


 * Read warming good
 * Endorse sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or classism in any form
 * Be rude or abusive to your opponents
 * Begin new flows in the 2NC
 * Yell over each other in cross-ex