Thorpe,+Chelsea

University of Georgia '18 Johns Creek High School '14

__**SHORT VERSION**__

Oceans Topic - Right now, I'm thinking in terms of Wake being the season opener. I did not judge any camp debates and my research on this topic is minimal. Because of this, I will probably be calling up cards a lot, but either way, be clear and make sure to define anything that's an acronym. Because ADX means nothing.

I also try my best to do the __least amount__ of work for you as possible in the debate (except for some protection of the 2NR), because I believe that this activity is solely based on how well **__you__** make it.

Things about me that you may want to know: I have debated both as a 2A and a 2N so I know the dos and don'ts of both. I am most familiar with paperless debate and I understand tech issues, but I won't tolerate cheating or flashing that takes too long.

__**LONG VERSION**__ My views on technical things: 1. Speaking - Speak fast, but clarity always comes first. 2. Flowing - DO IT!! 3. **Tech > Truth**. Dropped argument is a true argument. But doesn't mean tag-line extensions are ok. 4. Clash is //really// important. 5. Clipping cards means your speaker points = 23 max 6. I rarely call up for cards. 7. Play nice. Be nice. Respect eachother. etc. 8. Presumption usually goes neg 9. Jokes are always a plus, but don't try too hard

__Speaker Points__ - I raise the speaker points based on execution and technical skill, rather than how fast you speak because people who try to go really fast either 1) blur words together or 2) speak with extreme monotone. If you have to, slow down. But the speaker who expresses their ideas and arguments the best gets the higher speaker points. Natural voice and breathing = better points. - I have a magic superpower that can tell if you're reading blocks. If you read blocks and don't know what you're talking about, I will want to dock your speaker points. - Points vary each tournament

__Prep__ Stealing prep = I start prep then and your speaker points go down .5 each time you do it. I'm ridiculously tired of this, so, now, I will not be saying anything and I will just start the timer again.

__Indicts/Qualifications__ - People do so well at this in cross-ex. But they don't seem to put it in their speech. Please do so - Make sure you're right about the indicts - if it doesn't really say it, you didn't look at it and you are pure lazy.

__Cross-ex__ Favorite part of the debate. Make good use of the 3 minutes you are given.

__Case__ - I like case turns, so make them. - Plan aff: It's good to have a plan. Do what you want with it. Some affs on this topic do cheat - which is stupid. Win T and I'll vote for you. - Planless aff: As long as you have an advocacy statement, I'm all for it. Whatever you have to say or think is important, I will listen to it. - Performance: I like to be entertained. I will listen if it makes an argument and stays on topic (basically what others say as well). I do not think an 8 minute video is a speech, but I will boost speaker points for well-made analysis and argumentation. - Impact framing is good for you and me.

__Disads__ - I like specific disads. I don't like voting on generic disads just because I hear them all the time and it makes the debate extremely boring and avoids a lot of clash. AKA. make sure you read a good strategy rather than pulling out last-minute disads from the file. - Politics - Speak the truth. A bill not going to pass = dont run it. - Explain why the plan is a bad idea. Impact framing is a good thing

__ Counterplans __ I think most, if not all, counterplans are cheating. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it because I think most counterplans do solve. - //Process/Delay//: These are definitely cheating. Need to have a specific solvency advocate and net benefit if you expect me to vote on it - //PICs//: Probably solve - these definitely need a specific solvency advocate/net benefit - Should be textually and functionally competitive. Artificial competition is not a thing. - Probably will not judge-kick (sorry to disappoint) unless you explain to me **well** why I have to do this kind of work for you.

__Kritiks__ - I love Ks. But this comes with a price. Know what you're talking about. I don't see enough debates with enough analysis on the K, and I await the day I see that happen. Reading blocks won't fly with me. Just because I like Ks doesn't mean I'm a lazy judge. - This doesn't mean I know every piece of literature on this, so don't assume I know who author "X" is. - //Rhetoric Ks//: Meh, debate it out and it may depend on how good your evidence is on this question. I don't think this is a main voting issue because there are different rhetorical meanings for (almost) every word. - //Framework//: Have one! It helps a lot. But it's not usually a reason to vote aff or neg - Again, impact framing is a good thing. But rape, racism, etc are not good in my mind. - //Alt// - Why does a K have to solve for anything?

__Topicality__ - When looking at a T debate, I tend to focus mostly on competing interpretations, but sometimes I will default to reasonability - If you go for T against things like mass transit or high speed rail, probably not going to vote on it because I don't believe there's any ground loss so make a good T violation. - Don't run ASPEC, OSPEC, or GSPEC or whatever "-SPEC" that comes up in your head.

__Theory__ - //Condo//: 1 conditional advocacy is probably not a voting issue. Precondo isnt a thing - //Dispo//: GOOD - //Severence/Intrinsicness//: I don't like voting on this - //RVIs//: I will **definitely** not vote on this - they're a waste of my time I usually tend to err neg on this (except for conditionality) but I can be convinced other-wise Go for it in front of me if you want/have to

b.t.dubs - I will boost your speaker points if you show me your flows at the end of the round.