Gofman,+Alli

About me: I debated for four years for Hendrick Hudson (NY) on the regional and national circuits, mostly in the northeast. I'm currently a senior at Harvard.

Speed: go ahead. I can most likely flow it. I'll say 'clear' or 'slow' once with no penalty if you adjust accordingly. Recognize that I'm a while out and judge 3-4 tournaments a year. I'm probably not at my peak of comprehension anymore.

Note: I have no problem with speed, but I DO have a problem with lack of clarity. If you are unclear, I’ll only flow what I understood in the first speech, and will dock speaks. Any type of intentional obfuscation will cost you speaks - speaking style, the language of the case, or having poorly explained or unnecessarily complex arguments. And potentially the round, as I'll be more sympathetic to structural rebuttals (no warrant, no impact) your opponent makes. That being said, a clear and well explained critical position can be fun. Please //don’t// though if it's incredibly stupid, if you never linked it to the resolution, or if you don't fully understand it.

Theory: fine. You need to tell me what to do, and I'll do it. I'm receptive to RVIs.

Weighing: do it, please. If you don't, your speaks will go down and I'll weigh myself, with no promises that you'll like the result. If only one person weighs, they pretty much automatically win. Also: I default to evaluating the round via the criterion unless given a different mechanism. Keep this in mind when making off-case/prestandards/overview arguments and explain how and why they function, in which case i'm fine with using them to evaluate the round, but I won’t do that work for you. If you don't explain it, I’ll prefer any other articulated offence. If you run multiple off positions, please makes sure to give an order in which to evaluate them.

On a different note, I'd rather not see a round devolve into 'my statistics are better than yours. Some evidence comparison is understandable in some rounds, but a real comparison of studies is difficult to do if all the participants haven't fully read and understood the methodology/statistics. Empirical data is different from other arguments in that you can't easily explain the warrant: you typically only read the method and conclusions. The analysis is the hardest bit to coherently card or explain in round, so I'd rather not listen to a wasted 40 minutes.

Other: signpost, and be sure to number cards of the same author. Slow down on author names. Make full extensions: you don't have to spend thirty seconds, but some amount of warrant and impact extension is necessary for me to consider it.

Speaks: 28 is on the good side of an average round. Thirties are for something unusual (creative and great). If you're in an uneven round, being polite, kind, and educational will get you extra speaks even if you couldn't go all out.

Being rude will dock you speaks in any round. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise mean.

 Feel free to ask specific questions before the round.  Have fun and have good and interesting rounds!