Gorman,+Nick

Short version I'm fine with anything you want to do as long as you provide analysis as to WHY I should vote for it instead of your opponents arguments (this means weighing with traditional case structures, framework comparisons, voters on theory reasonably developed and impacted to, framework on Ks, performative arguments also better have damn good framework). Speed wont be a problem if you are clear, I can handle up to around 400 wpm. If you don't know how fast you are, you probably aren't too fast. Clarity can be a problem. In either case, I will give you verbal signals if you are too unclear.

Longer Version Background - 4 years of LD in highschool and 2 of college. Qualified to the TOC my senior year. Nationals in college 2 times. My style was usually multiple off cases (Counterplan, theory, generic justifications NC) using the to gain a strategic advantage. I ran Ks (always as a 1 off). Severed from the affirmative constructive (I will talk more about severance later). The only thing I have not dabbled in is performative Ks (although I have seen enough to feel comfortable with them).

Speaker points - I determine these based on three factors - clairity, strategy, and round vision (those last two being similar). Clarity shouldnt be an issue, strategy is based on what arguments you articulate, and round vision is which ones you choose to go for (please dont go for all of them unless its easy to get them all) and how you choose to make those arguments interact.However, if I deem an action objectionable, I will doc speaker points (and use your common sense, Im fine with vulgarity if you must, though it gets you nowhere, just don't be condescending, racist, sexist, or anything else like that).

Speed - I was never the fastest debater but was relatively fast - I am currently around 340 wpm. Thus, I dont mind speed and I dont mind people using it for gaining a competitive advantage. If you find yourself behind in that aspect, find some way to counteract the speed (apriori arguments, collapsing to a single winning argument, weighing etc.) and along the same lines i WILL listen to a speed K if there is some way you can determine what is and is not too fast in the shell.

Dropped arguments - its a concession as long as the argument is not a blip and makes sense - if you articulate the dumbest, most inarticulate argument, without a claim/warrent/impact, I wont consider it. If you win a drop, you don't necessarily win the round either. Instead of just pointing out it was dropped, clarify the interaction between the dropped argument and other arguments or the round as a whole.

Presumption - I do sometimes find myself in the position I vote off of presumption. This arises when there is no offense that functionally operates at the end of the round (i.e. when taking into account terminal defense, no offensive justifications for an affirmative or negative ballot exist). When it happens, I presume based on the wording of the resolution (if there is no warrented burden analysis in the round). This also means, should the burden to prove something as true rest with a particular side, terminal defense is a reason to vote. However, if there is possibility of solving for a particular harm, then that harm does function as a reason to vote.

Specific positions Im fine with parametrics. Just have some theoretical justification for the parametrics ready, because I will also vote against parametrics should there be a good reason for me to vote against it.

Severing the affirmative - make sure there is burden analysis (why the negative has the burden of proof) OR there must be good offense on one or more of the negative positions. On the flip side, I will vote for a severance bad position, should the negative win it. Seeing as there is only one negative speech to develop the position, the affirmative must answer all the offense on the position and I will not listen to "fairness/education" is not a voter in this instance (but its fine any other time).

Counterplans are cool - make sure you have a counterplan text that the affirmative can hold you to. Also, i am fine with counterplan theory and any counterplan you are willing to run. The only counterplan that will face uphill battles are delay counteplans.

Ks - This will be the biggest issue - although I ran them and am fine voting on them, if they are philosophically dense, make sure you explain it. DONT SPEED THROUGH DENSE WARRANTS. That is the easiest way for me to vote you down. If I dont understand what is going on I will be more lenient towards your opponent. However, I do call cards, so even if this is somewhat of a problem, I will still most likely to be able to determine how the arguments function.

Theory - You dont need a counter interp - I believe there is an inhierent counter interp (i.e. NOT the interpretation). Thus, if you have offense against the standards, then there is a reason to reject the position. Make sure there is weighing between the arguments against the standards and the standards - leverage dropped standards against your opponents offense and make sure you impact to your voters. And please tell me why something is a voter. If you just say fairness is a voter and then move on and your opponent gives a warrented reason it is not a voter, then its not a voter. Also make sure there is a link to your opponents practices or arguments.

If there is anything else I missed, just ask before the round, I am more than fine with questions. Also, I am likely to give you high speaks should you not mess up that badly.