Dusaj,+Neville


 * Background:** I debated Lincoln Douglas for 4 years at Montville Township High School. I now study at the University of Pennsylvania


 * Short Overview:** I can understand a pretty quick speaking pace. I want arguments to be well warranted and for strategies to clash. I want you provide a weighing structure. I am open to any types of arguments, so long as they have relevance (just try to not be offensive). I have a very high threshold for voting theory and I don't like cheap strategies used for quick easy wins. I want to see two debaters actually engage in a meaningful discussion of the resolution.

__**Paradigm**__

Additionally, I would like you to slow down on important things like taglines and author names. If I cannot understand you I will call clear once, and after that if you see me stop flowing completely then you know you have lost me.
 * Speed:** I can probably understand someone reading at 85% top circuit speed. That being said, being able to understand and being able to make a detailed flow are two separate things. If you are running stock arguments that are more basic and easy to understand then going this fast should be fine, __provided that you are being clear__. If you have a nuanced case or dense framework and complex arguments that are harder to understand, you are definitely going to want to slow it down a bit so that I can write down everything I need.

One thing to keep in mind: It is actually easier to debate against someone reading at top speed because you can always request for pages to be passed. As a judge I cannot. It is your responsibility to clearly communicate your arguments, and keep in mind the faster you go, the higher the chance that I miss the small details that could be the difference between a win and a loss.

I'm OK with flex prep being used to allow for more questioning, but I really don't like if you use your CX time solely as prep time.
 * Cross-X:** I love a good cross-x and I think it's the best time to really establish dominance (both perceptually and substantively) over your opponent. I always listen to CX and even flow things that I think might be important later in the round. CX is binding.

I really hate having to "default" to some sort of weighing mechanism but if forced to make that choice it would most likely be an ends-based impact comparison. Please don't make me do this though. I also do not default to a truth testing or competing worlds paradigm because I feel it really depends on the nature of the resolution. Additionally, I don't feel that a distinction here is absolutely necessary in most rounds. However, if this distinction is crucial to your strategy, just give me warranted reasons for preferring one or the other just as you would for any other type of argument.
 * Framework:** I'm fine with frameworks that come in a variety of forms. The important thing here is just make sure you establish some sort of mechanism that I can use to weigh the round. Make sure your framework is as clear as possible. When making my decision, I start at the framework first, and then work my way to the contention level so the way in which you frame the round is very important.

If there are spikes in the framework make sure they are legitimate and well warranted, not just blippy statements to use as cheap shots later on in the round. Also, if they are too short I probably won't have time to flow all of them so they still won't work to your advantage.


 * Evidence**: I will call for evidence if it is contested, and I won't vote on evidence that is miscut or completely unwarranted.

Additionally, when responding to theory I don't believe individuals should be punished for not using exact words or phrases that are prevalent on the circuit. If your opponent can make justified responses to a theory shell and show that they are not being abusive, then I will buy their argument even if they don't do things like provide a "counter interpretation" or respond to every last point on the line-by-line debate.
 * Theory:** I have a very high threshold for theory that I __want__ to hear. If an argument is really abusive, I'd much rather see a non-shell, quick argument as to why it is unfair for the round. That being said I will vote on theory if it goes untouched and makes a relevant, warranted claim, but I especially do not like seeing theory run as a purely offensive strategy. I'd much rather see a debate on the resolution itself.


 * Plans/CPs/Ks/Policy Style Arguments****:** I am open to listening to all kinds of arguments, but since policy cases tend to be more complex and detailed, keep in mind the level of pace and clarity you read with for me to understand and flow what I need.

At the end of your final speech, I would like you to sum up the round for me. Start with the weighing mechanism that I should be using and the big reasons that you have won under that framework. (I am a little more acceptable with Aff giving voters along the way in the 2AR but the Neg should definitely be able to crystallize at the end of the 2NR).
 * Crystallization/Voters/Extension:** I will not do any work for you on the flow. Explicitly state what you want me to extend and the implications of that.


 * Speaker Points:** I assign speaker points solely on the way you communicate your ideas, regardless of whether you win or lose the round. I don't care if you go fast or slow, just remember that debate is still a part of forensics, and being able to communicate effectively is essential.