Anderson,+Sam

Background: I debated LD for Lakeville North (MN) from 2009-2013 on the local and national circuits and worked at VBI this summer.

Overview: I'm generally fine with any argument you want to run, as long as you justify why I should vote for them. I won't evaluate arguments that I don't understand or don't have a semblance of a warrant (marginal cases will be decided pretty arbitrarily, so beware).

Speed/Clarity: - To be honest, there's a good chance I won't be able to flow your top speed. Plan on maybe 75-80%. Please slow down for tags, author names, advocacy texts, short analytics, or any unusually complex arguments. - I have a higher threshold for clarity than most circuit judges. I'll yell clear, louder, etc. as many times as necessary, but after the second time I'll start docking speaks. I won't evaluate arguments I couldn't flow after the first verbal warning unless I wasn't paying attention or something.

Theory: - For the most part, I don’t want to see it. It usually just sounds like whining, and in general I believe that theory as a strategic tool is exclusionary and uneducational. This won’t affect how I evaluate theory, but it may affect your speaks. Don’t initiate unless you’re sure there is abuse. Topicality is an exception; if you have a nuanced T shell supported by evidence, your opponent doesn’t need to be abusive per se, but if it’s a binary interp that can be run no matter what the aff does (for example, aims vs. implementation) then I probably don’t want to see that. - I default to competing interps. However, even under competing interps, if I think the theory debate is too close to call or if someone has very good defense (like a clear 'I meet') I might decide it's a wash and look to substance. - I don’t presume that theory is an RVI but I’m sympathetic to that argument (especially on the aff). - My assumption is that offensively-worded counterinterps don't need an RVI if the original shell was running drop the debater. It's not up to the judge to decide that a plank of an interpretation is arbitrary, so as long as their interp is comparatively better than yours and you violate it, that should be sufficient for you to lose the round. This is only a default though, feel free to argue against it.

Kritiks: I'm not very well-read on the lit, you'll need to be very clear with your arguments. They also need either a developed role of the ballot (if pre-fiat), a separate moral framework, or links into the AC framework (if post-fiat), they aren't self-contained pieces of offense.

Other: - If you group arguments in the case, you have to explain why you can group them instead of responding to them individually. If you group a contention with four subpoints and read a 10-card dump, then I’ll assume your block has been applied to the first argument and you’ve dropped the rest. - If you’re going to have a wall of blippy, pre-emptive spikes, **they must be numbered** or I won’t be able to flow them. If you start the AC with “Presume aff because I had to overcome structural skews. Aff gets RVIs to compensate for time skew. The neg must prove the converse of the resolution or else they have a 2-to-1 advantage. Fairness is a voter because debate is a competitive activity” etc etc, there’s no way I’m going to catch every argument so I’m not going to try. Putting these at the bottom of your case instead of the top also greatly increases the probability that I flow them all. - I’m fine with presumption/permissibility arguments, but “triggering” those arguments in later speeches is illegitimate. If the implication of your argument is that the resolution is merely permissible, or impossible to evaluate so we look to presumption, or anything that somehow makes the rest of the round irrelevant, that has to be explicit in its first articulation or else it’s a new argument and I will ignore it.

Speaks: - I’ll try to average around 28. <span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif;">- You get better speaks for making smart arguments, debating about the topic, and effective weighing/crystallization. You lose speaks for making the round muddled, forcing me to vote on bad arguments, and going for multiple underdeveloped arguments instead of engaging your opponent. Chillness is good, perceptual dominance is good, but arrogance and rudeness are not.