DeWitt,+Taylor


 * About Me: ** I graduated from Marcus High School in 2012, where I debated LD for four years on mostly the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to kritiks, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run. I’m not personally a huge fan of skep but if you can justify it it you can win with it. I also haven't been in a debate round (judging or debating) in about a year so I am probably rusty and apologize for this.

**Speed:** I can flow moderately fast speeds (6-7 on a scale), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. If I put my pen down and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!!

**Theory:** I like a good theory debate but do not like when it is used as a strategy instead of a way to legitimately check abuse. I.e. I don’t like running theory just to give your opponent another hoop to jump through.That being said I will still listen to and vote based off of theory arguments.

**Speaks:** I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. Mostly I deduct speaks based on inaudibility or poor decorum in round. If I can understand you and you treat your opponent with respect then you should get good speaks. Just don't be a jerk. Please be nice to your opponent, it isn't hard. You will not like your speaks if you are rude. It is perfectly possible to seem confident without seeming cocky, and you need to find this line.

**General Preferences:** I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/prestandards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory. I cannot weigh the importance of arguments myself, you must tell me how I should weigh arguments when voting. Layer the debate and tell me which layers come first. If I look lost, and I will try to be expressive so you know, try and slow down and explain more clearly. Once again, be polite and respectful to your opponent. I cannot express this thoroughly enough.

**Kritiks and Micropol:** I would explain these clearly. For complex arguments make sure you explain them and perhaps even read them slower than you would other, more stock, cases. These can be interesting arguments but are only interesting if I understand them, so make sure I do.

**Extensions and Signposting:** Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). Signposting is vital - I'll probably shuffle my flows a lot if I'm lost. Be explicit with what argument you are on and what you would like me to do with it. You should tell me you want me to extend an argument, verusus just reference back to it.

If you are not clear on a particular part of my paradigm, just ask me!