Okere,+Seneca

I debated at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet for four years, where I competed on national, state, and municipal level (TOC, TFA, DUDA.) And I am the assistant debate coach at the same school. Leggo--

General: Please don't be rude or offensive in round. Debate should be fun, educational, and inspirational; and any attempt to inject our community with Defending stances that are objectively deemed as (un)nethical/moral (eg, "racism good") warrant low speaks, and in some instances, a loss. (If you have time, I'll tell you a story about a round I recently judged.) I'm fine with **speed**, but be clear on **tags, authors, CP/Plan texts, and Theory/T.** Here's why: 1) clarity helps my flow, and 2) this could help you because clarity will reduce the chances of me losing essential arguments on my flow. If I can't understand you because of clarity, my physical expressions will let you know.

Speaks: Good ethos is always a way to ensure higher speaker points. One of the things I enjoy about debate is the amount of knowledge we attained through research. I look for a debater's ability to exemplify learnedness on a particular argument or literature base. Crossapplicaitons, extrapolations, embedded clash, CX, and speeches not entirely governed by blocks are a testament. I will dish out points accordingly.

Paperless: Flash isn't prep. But if it's obvious that you're stealing prep, I will restart the timer. Please make tech adjustments before the round as to ensure the flow of the debate/tournament. :)

T/Theory-I think that what makes these debates enjoyable is the amount of clash between the teams. I have no side bias on theory, but this only makes the warrants more important to me (particularly on the voter portion of the debate).

D/As- I default toward a defense/offense paradigm.

CP-Most CPs are okay (except consultation). I do think it's harder for the neg to win these debates without strong offense. So I usually expect more analysis from the neg on solvency and net benefits.

Kritiks: I may not be familiar with the literature, but I have no problem with voting on them. Kritikal affs are okay, but I do think some kind of advocacy statement or plantext is beneficial...but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.