Diraviam,+Alex

Bio: I am a student at the University of Florida. I have no prior debate experience.

=Brief Summary - Read if otw to round=

__**Speed**__
No spreading please. I never did debate in high school and cannot understand spread.

__**K's, CP's, and other techy stuff**__
Once again, I never did debate in High School. That being said, however, if you wish to run a K or a CP I am willing to evaluate it, but I cannot promise that I will evaluate it as well as I am supposed to. I have some knowledge on some philosophical constructs and theorys, however i am not well versed in K lit, so if you choose to run a K please explain it well and make a good case for how the aff links in.

__**Theory**__
Very simple, don't do. I don't know how to evaluate it. **__However, if there is a legitimate abuse please point it out and run a shell.__** __I know what the shell will look like and how to evaluate it, but don't run theory as a cop out, there is a chance I won't evaluate it how you want me to.__

My typical range is a 28-29, winner will usually get a 29, loser will usually get a 28.

 * Easy to follow voters
 * Logical construction
 * No spreading
 * No excessive theory
 * JOKES, __**but I suck at understanding sarcasm as my friends are constantly pointing out to me.**__
 * __**Offensive arguments (i.e. racism) will result in an auto drop and 0 speaks, no exceptions**__

=__**For filling out judge prefs**__=

__**How I will Evaluate the round**__
I will base my decision purely off the flow. I am 100% (well as close as one can realistically be) tabula rosa. I have some basic understanding in phil but not enough where i will know the lit and argument by hearing a card tag. Please explain your arguments and don't assume that I will just figure it out. It is your job to convey the argument.

I will only disclose on a case by case basis, sorry, I'm shy.


 * __Framework.__**
 * I am open to hearing different frameworks, however I personally have not read the literature behind many of these frameworks. That being said make sure you explain your framework carefully. Don't just rush through and expect me to perfectly follow. I will judge the round based on your ability to maintain your framework via your value and value criterion and supporting contention level offense.
 * I enjoy both a good philosophical framework debate and a good contention/substance debate. If you engage in the philosophical debate, make sure to make your weighing is clear and explain how your framework is better or your opponents is wrong etc. Short and blippy framework arguments are not the way to win the framework debate. CLEAR EXPLANATION IS KEY.


 * __Substance/Contention__**
 * I see evidence as a way of proving the validity of your arguments/claims, not claims/arguments themselves. Don't run a chain of evidence and names and expect me to vote for it.
 * Logical arguments are valid in my view, however don't make crazy assertions and expect me to agree with them.
 * Far stretched arguments links to plausibility and topicality must be clear and evident. If you plan on running something unique make sure to explain it well. I enjoy hearing unique and different arguments/perspectives, however make sure to explain the link well.


 * __Argumentation (rebuttal)__**
 * When making extensions don't tell me to extend John Smith 15, summarize what I'm extending and why should I care that your opponent dropped/conceded to this argument. Extensions are meaningless unless you tell me why I care. I will not put in the impacts for you.
 * Don't make the argument "my study is better" or "this argument is not plausible" or "drop this." Give me a reason why. Im not saying i won't vote off argument weighing, but if you don't provide a reason why you opponents argument is wrong or yours is better, I won't do the work for you.
 * Im not looking to blocks to every card brought up, but rather can you effectively refute the argument the card is supporting. Cards are not arguments, but rather back up your arguments validity.


 * __Speaker Points__**
 * On average, I give 27-29 speaker points.
 * to get a 30 in round
 * 1. clearly articulate your words
 * 2. arguments must be well organized
 * 3. word economy
 * 4. Good overall argumentation
 * 5. clear thought process (Can i tell where you are going with what you are saying or is it unorganized and incoherent)

Im a more traditional judge, i never did the activity personally, however that does not mean that i will not be open to hearing different types of arguments such as plans and counter plans. Im not familiar with the particular structures of plans/counterplans; however, I am open to listening and judging these.
 * __Policy like arguments.__**