Breland,+Ali

I went to Cy-Woods and did LD for four years. I debated mostly on the local circuit, and the national circuit my senior year. I coached a debater at Cy-Fair HS on the TFA circuit. I currently go to UT Austin and study Philosophy.

I'm pretty impartial to most styles of debate, meaning that I'm not going to prefer a Kritik to Theory, or policy-style arguments, that being said, I do process certain styles of debate more easily than others. I'll get to that later.


 * __Getting my ballot:__**

I prefer rounds where a debater has clearly spelled out to me why he should win. I don't like to intervene and only do so when a) I feel as though the round is so unclear that I have no choice but to intervene to pick a winner, or b) when a debater makes a poor argument. I won't treat a poor argument as offense for the opposing debater (unless they figure out how to extend offense off the argument in question on their own), but I'm not going to buy the impacts of it that the debater is telling me to buy.

I like a clear standard of how I should evaluate the round. I like a clearly explained framework deba te, about why you are either winning the framework debate, or why you are doing a better job with your opponents framework than your own. I need to you to explain why all of your arguments link back into the standard and why you are outweighing based off that standard. Simply trying to outweigh on all of your arguments (unless they all link) is a waste of your time. Only make arguments that are relevant to that standard and to the ballot.


 * __Speed:__**

Speed is fine. It adds value to depth of the arguments you can run. I'll say clear once. Slow down for very complex, academic cards. It's tough for me to follow in most cases unless I've already read the material. Also, I think it's abusive to your opponent.

__**Theory:**__

I'll evaluate it and enjoy a good theory debate, just make it easy for me to understand, and clearly warrant your positions. Don't make the debate exclusively about theory. It's harder for me to evaluate accurately, and I prefer substantive arguments over T. I don't like it when rounds turn into muddled presumption theory arguments. If a large amount of the round is taking place there, it's more worth your time to treat it as a wash and move to other parts of the flow.

__**Comparative Worlds vs. Truth Testing:**__

I don't have a preference. Explain to me, with explicit justifications, why I default to whichever one you want and what it's implications are in the round.


 * __Kritiks__**

I really like Kritks. If they are well-run, they are easy to for me to understand and fun to judge. That being said, you need to do a good job with critical arguments. I'll take any other kind of argument that is well run, over a poorly run K. You're K should be topical, and not look some backfile sitting in your expando that you pieced together before or during the round.

Don't read a dense pomo author and misconstrue what they say to help your own critical arguments. If you don't get it, don't run it. Also figure out what violence and structural actually means in the context of post-modernism.


 * __Things I Do Not Like, That Will Hurt You:__**

Intentionally misconstruing and extrapolating arguments. I'm a humanities major. Don't try to read a card from an academic paper, and tell me what's implications are if those aren't the implications of the card. I'm either going to hear it, or if I'm skeptical, pull the card after the round and look at it. I see a lot debaters making huge impacts off things that the author doesn't say. Say what the card says, don't bastardize it.

Do not tell me ridiculous, unintuitive things unless you are prepared to do a lot of work and explain to me why you are correct in saying such things. E.G.: I judged a round in which one debater tried to tell me that defaulting to western medicine is ethnocentric and bad for the world. On face, I think that's a pretty stupid argument. Western medicine is responsible for a disproportionally high amount of medical advancements, and helping the worlds health. That debater could have swayed me if he had provided specific reasoning as to why western medicine is bad, and not just proclaiming that preferring anything that starts with "western" is egocentric, and proving the benefits of considering alternative forms of medicine. I will evaluate arguments that go very far away from the status quo, but only with substantial justification and rationale behind them.

Being a jerk. I like clash, and I like it when debaters are competitive. Don't cross the line and demean your opponent. It will reflect in your speaks and if bad enough, cost you the round. Even if you're clearly winning, that doesn't mean they don't deserve your respect.

Muddled rounds.

Extreme spreading through dense theory debate.


 * __Things I Do Like:__**

Compelling, original arguments. If you took the time to make a unique thought provoking argument, I think that's better for debate and keeps my attention.

Take debate seriously, but not too seriously. You will do more important and more substantive things in your life; debate is just helping you get there. Have fun with it.