Goode,+Ethan

Meta Perspective:
High school debate is a twisted game which feeds off of the constant simulation of various images of human suffering. Your job, as a debater, is to play the game, or tell me how and why we should play the game differently(or maybe not even play the game at all).

Argument Preferences:

 * Topicality** - If you are a team that likes to go for t, I would prefer if you went for a different argument if possible. Topicality debates bore me; HOWEVER, I will vote up a team that wins topicality. I like teams to run topicality against obviously non-topical affirmatives. If you run topicality against the STEM education funding affirmative, I'm going to sob when you kick all the substance of the debate in your 2nr. That aside, I will still vote on t.


 * Theory** - Don't run a-spec, o-spec, l-spec, p-spec, (insert letter of the alphabet here)-spec. I would vote on inherency alone before I voted on these arguments. I will vote on condo good/bad.


 * Disadvantages** - I love a good da. Generic, or specific, as long as the link is clear and the impact scenario/internal link story is set up in a logically cohesive manner, I'm down to vote for a da. If a da isn't unique, don't run it(or use it as a case turn if possible). Impact calculus probably matters the most in rounds in which you just go for a da.


 * Counter plans** - If the counter plan has a good solvency advocate, go for it. I will vote on theory against pics, actor cp's, and process cp's. I think every argument is fair game in this area.

__//side note//__: I love discourse k's, but I evaluate them oddly, so this must be mentioned. If, for instance, you want to run gendered language against a team for saying "you guys ready?" before a speech, I will accept an apology and a language correction as adequate to resolve any offense(unless the team is being blatantly offensive). However, if you want to run the same argument, because the evidence and the presentation of the 1ac is hyper-masculine, I will follow your argument all day. I think the strength of discourse kritiks lies in being able to pin down the representations of the constructed speeches. Back on track! When evaluating kritiks I always default to the framework debate first. If you tell me how I should be playing the game, you're probably going to win. If you lose framework, then I collapse to comparative impact calculus, or a pik if one exists. After that, you probably lost the kritik unless you have a spicy case turn.I will evaluate the links as impact turns if you kick out of your alternative, however I'm more likely to buy aff case defense in this situation.
 * Kritiks** - In high school I was mostly a kritikal debater. I have read a lot of postmodern literature, and enough identity politics literature to adequately understand most kritikal arguments. The substance of your kritik is of no importance to me, however don't assume I'm an expert; I expect a pretty thorough explanation of any kritikal arguments.


 * K aff** - I know this is an area of controversy, so i'm including it on here. I don't care what the heck you say in your 1ac as long as you give me a frame work for evaluating the content presented, and you defend your performance.

Speaker points:
30 = speech of  29 = plus good 28 = good 27= un-good 26=plus un-good 25 or lower = double plus un-good

Don't ask me what any of this means. Also, I will give fractions of points in order to remain precise in my evaluation.

I'm fine with spreading, but if your opponent whips out that spicy spreading kritik against you, I will listen to it; so, be prepared to defend your presentation of the 1ac. Enunciating tag lines is key if you want me to flow your speed. Clarity is also an additional factor. I will say clear/slow a total of three times before I stop flowing.

Cross Examination:
An arena style, gladiatorial aspect of debate; I love it! I'm not going to flow cx, but I do enjoy when teams bring cx content into their speeches, and are very strategic in cx. This will reflect on your speaker points.

---

At the end of the day, we do debate to win, not to make a difference. So, have fun, be experimental, and embrace your fellow debaters (not literally, that could be considered assault). Also, don't be hateful. If you want to run your white nationalism kritik, go for it, but when you bring eugenics and racist language into the mix, I will automatically vote you down, and deem your speech double plus un-good.