Renaud,+Aaron

For CX: I debated at Decatur High School, Texas for four years.

Here's the short paradigm: Tabula Rosa.

For more details:

Presentation:

I won't consciously vote you down just because you look like you rolled out of bed, or whatever, but don't forget there's a whole mess of unconscious choices made when people judge. This is a communication event; that doesn't mean I can't handle speed (get to that later), rather, that you need to communicate your ideas clearly to me. If that means sacrificing three or four time-suck advocacies, that's fine. Just don't expect me to understand what you're talking about unless you explain what you're talking about. Also, don't be a jerk; I'll bomb your speaks.

Speed:

I'm okay with speed, as long as it's clear. I'm not going to tell you whether you are or not, you're supposed to have been preparing all year to be judged, don't expect me to do the job of you or your coaches. If you want to know if I'm flowing or not, look to see.

Arguments:

I'll pretty much vote on anything, just tell me why I need to vote on it. In the case that neither team provides me with a framework to vote with, I'll likely default policy maker. Personally, I prefer a good policy clash, but that doesn't influence the way I vote, nor does it mean you have to run it. Run whatever you feel comfortable with. I ran performance affs in High School, so I'm game for whatever.

Other:

You won't get voted down for either open CX or prompting (unless there's a rule I'm conscious of) but heavy use of it makes you look unprepared.

Impact abuse claims. Saying it's abusive doesn't mean anything, tell me why I need to intervene.

Also, I appreciate homegrown arguments, anything that isn't generic cap good/bad or heg good/bad makes for a fun debate.

If there's anything you're unsure of, feel free to ask me.

For LD:

Pretty much the same as above, actually. If you want to make me laugh, read from the bible. Or, even better, if someone reads from the bible, quote the Qur'an and claim newer evidence.