Agar-Johnson,+Matt

CONFLICTS: Collegiate

I was a circuit debater who graduated in '13.

I will vote on almost any argument, with a few exceptions:
 * I will not reward tricks/skeptical arguments with high speaker points, but will vote on them if won.
 * I will not vote on Bostrom.
 * I will not vote on "Topic Lit" as a theory standard -- I am not well-versed on the topic literature and will not believe you telling me that "the topic lit doesn't talk about blah blah blah..." unless you have empirical statistics comparing key search terms from scholarly literature on a given topic, which I will examine for methodology and gut-check.
 * If both debaters make arguments about how their framework "precludes" or "comes before" their opponents' without actually comparing the two I will pound my head on the desk, flip a coin in my head, and go with that framework.
 * In short: be smart, know what you're talking about, and if you leave a lot of the round-figuring up to me, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Other fun facts:

> So yeah, probably don't pref me if your primary friend group is your circuit debate buddies who you spend all tournament trying to impress with your sneaky tactics and exclusionary behaviour toward people who didn't go to your fancy debate camp whose stickers are plastered all over your Macbook Pros and brown paper expandos. You will remind me of every way in which I was a terrible, adolescent pseudo-human as a debater, and I will not be impressed.
 * I will say clear once or twice and then just stop flowing, and will completely ignore any extensions that I didn't understand or hear the first time.
 * I would love to see a complex framework debate, and will absolutely reward you if it is clear to me that you understand the philosophy you are reading.
 * Util-calculus policy style rounds are good if there is actual evidence comparison. Otherwise I have no choice but to gut-check or guess, both of which you probably don't want.
 * I can flow DECENTLY but not super well, and am really not good at flowing that obnoxious, whiny monotone that debaters use as an excuse to avoid good diction. I will call clear a couple of times and then just put down my pen. If you see that happening, slow down and speak like an actual human being. If you would like examples of people who speak quickly and correctly rather than like a bee colony buzzing in a pattern vaguely reminiscent of human speech, check out outrounds of the NDT for some guidance. It is possible, and if you can't do it you should be speaking slower.
 * If you use any triggering or offensive language during a round, I will sign the ballot, give you the lowest speaker points allowed at the tournament, and give your opponent a 30. I will also find your coach after the round and discuss your conduct.
 * Similarly, but less harshly, if you are rude/condescending to your opponent in round, I will call you out on it and dock speaks.
 * If you know me and try and act friendly toward me to intimidate your opponent, understand that that puts me in a position where I basically have to drop you to not look like a hack. If you refer to me by ANY "circuit" nicknames, I promise you I will drop you.