Kim,+William

I debated LD for Strake Jesuit for 4 years. I competed at State and several bid tournaments, as well as some crappy ones with parent judges. I currently do parli debate in college. I'm fine with any arguments as long as they are clear and they aren't blatantly offensive. I like debaters to clarify a lot. If you don't want to make your strategy clear in your first speech that's fine (like war, debate is based on deception) but everything should be crystal clear by the last speech. By clear, I mean that you should explain what arguments are important and why you're winning those arguments. In other words, tell me why I should vote for you. I like lots of weighing. Weighing is always good, especially if you're both going for the same framework. I don't like "he said she said debates", I have to know what's important I don't like it when debaters spread themselves to thin. If you want to try to zerg rush your opponent with a bunch or args that's fine, but collapse to a few key issues by the end of the round. It's annoying when debaters go for 10 different args in the 2ar as if they all have equal weight. keep in mind that my flows are shit (I have dysgraphia so don't judge me). A few issues: Speed: fine so long as you are clear. I will yell "clear" if you are not. Also, slow down a little if you are running something confusing (if you think it's confusing it probably is) Speaking in general: emphasize important points, tag lines or labels. by slowing down, changing tone, raising your voice, etc. Theory: Fine, but I prefer to only see theory if it's necessary (i.e. you feel you are actually being abused). I'll vote for stupid theory like "must use times new roman font" but I'll dock speaks for it Speaks: Don't be a dick to your opponent. Being aggressive is fine but that's not the same thing as being a dick. More importantly, don't be dick to me. That'll definitely cost speaks. If you feel like I fucked up the decision, be polite about it. If you're funny I'll give you good speaks but if you're not funny don't try to be. I won't penalize you for not being funny unless you make bad jokes. If you make a reference to Top Gun and/or Archer in your speech, you will automatically get a 30. Larping: I was a shameless larper in high school so this is cool. I generally like DAs, CPs, plans and advantages. Ks: I didn't run Ks a lot in high school but I started running them a lot in college so I will vote for them. Ks need a framework too and I feel like a lot of Ks are just util impacts that don't justify util. "reject this cause it causes genocide" is not a framework, I need some standard as to how I evaluate the K. Also, Ks should have an alt unless you give me a reason why they don't. Framework debate: pretty important as I need to now what standard I use to evaluate the round. However, you also have to have clear arguments that link to your framework, so don't neglect your contentions. Feel free to ask any questions