Thomas,+Loring

__Experience__

I have debated policy for 4 years at Claremont High School in California from 2009-2013 (Poverty, Military Presence, Space, Transportation Infrastructure), I currently attend Pitzer College

__Paradigm__ I did a lot of K debate in high school, and really enjoyed it. Saying that, I wouldn’t suggest running a K unless you really, really know it. In terms of debate, I usually won’t vote on potential abuse, but if there is actual abuse occurring in round, I’ll default to the flow on the theory debate. For CP/K/Theory, please slow down on the text, and the specific standards, specifically for theory. Rapid Fire standards are hard to get on the flow, which is bad for the specific debate itself.

If you choose to run a K, either as the affirmative or the negative, PLEASE explain what the alt does, and why the world of that advocacy is better than the world your opponents present. Just because you run a K doesn’t mean that the clash isn’t there, but the arguments really need to be made.

I also default to policymaker framework. If you don’t want me to do this, give me another framework.

__Speed__ Speed is fine. Just make sure that you are clear.

__Flowing__ Do it. Its really important for maintaining an organized speech. I will award +.5 speaks for an excellent flow after the round.

__Other__ I have a pretty high tolerance for theory. Make sure to articulate the voter (reject arg v reject team) through. For topicality, I have trouble voting for it, except if abuse is proven, and the aff doesn’t do much in the way of answering it effectively. I will default to competing interpretations, but am receptive to reasonability arguments. I try to minimize judge intervention, but I will occasionally call for a card or two.

Make sure to have a good time too!