Pearcy,+Dylan

**Strikes:** Churchill
 * Affiliation:** Winston Churchill (San Antonio, TX)


 * LD Philosophy**


 * Standards:** I want both debaters to establish a standard for the round and then I want to hear arguments linked back to that standard. Debates over the acceptability of the affirmative or negative standard are certainly warranted and I would expect both sides to often have disagreement over what standards are acceptable.


 * Positional Debate:** I am a strong believer in debating the resolution. On affirmative you better be reasonably topical. On negative, if you are going to go outside the standards debate that is fine but it better relate to the resolution. For example, don’t give me an old school K on debating the topic if it’s just a “debate bad” type argument – make your arguments relate in some way to the resolution. I've voted for orientalism and the black aesthetic on more than one occasion. If you do have overviews and off-case arguments that independently disprove the resolution explain them and I will likely vote on them. If you lose the case debate but win the resolution on negative I will probably vote negative.


 * Theory & Abuse:** I feel like abuse is a horrible argument and if you are going to claim abuse based on some sort of theoretical attack it will be highly scrutinized – that doesn’t mean I won’t buy it but it better a VERY strong argument. I have voted on theory but I much prefer clearly articulated substantive positions presented in the round. (Update: After Greenhill & St Marks I've realized my threshold for theory is much higher than I thought - if I don't BELIEVE the theory argument truly shows abuse I might vote against it EVEN IF you win the theory flow on a technical level if your opponent wins the theory flow on a reasonability level.)


 * Speed:** Spreading just to spread will be penalized on speaks if you don’t actually need the extra time to make arguments more in depth. If you do spread it better be clear as I still think communication skills, at any speed, are a key to LD. If your words are unclear, any words, then I will deduct speaker points. I will also warn you that my flowing will get progressively worse as the tournament goes on and my hand gets tired.


 * Framework:** I tend to lean towards the affirmative, they have the burden to affirm so they get a little leeway on framework arguments. If I don’t understand your argument don’t expect me to vote on it – make it clear from the beginning!


 * Weighing & Voters:** Wrap the round up for me and explain how you win. Don’t just stay on flow for the entire round. As we get away from overall communication in LD I feel it’s important to still have some period of the round where you communicate for me why you win the round clearly. Don’t rely on me to pick it up as you speed along through the flow. I want a clear decision making calculus and I prefer you give it to me as a wrap up at the end.


 * Evidence:** I will not read a card after the round unless it is a point of contention in the round. Don't expect me to read a card to clarify what the card said, if it's a matter of clarity I will leave that up to the debaters.


 * Presentation:** Act professional and do not resort to rudeness in the round. Please dress professional and stand up in CX and in speeches (the standing issue is not about an antiquated adherence to tradition BUT based on the fact that you are MUCH MORE CLEAR when you stand and project better - helps me flow.) Do not scream and do not curse!


 * CX Philosophy**

** Topicality: ** I will vote on T but I don’t feel like a topical case should be rejected because the negative has a new fun angle to discuss. I prefer a case list and a debate by analogy or example as to what provides the better limit. I do not like to diagram sentences or sort through a bunch of poorly warranted standards.

** Other Argumentation: ** I really want to hear a debate about the case. I think that a primary burden of the affirmative is to affirm the resolution and a primary burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative’s reasoning. I feel like well researched DA’s, CP’s and case specific arguments are a sign of a team that is really working. I like kritiks with a legitimate alternative to the affirmative position. I will vote for a legit K that is well presented and understood by those who run it. However, even if an argument isn't run well don’t assume I will reject it if you don't respond because above all I believe the round should be decided based on what happens in the round.

** Speed: ** Speed for speeds sake will be penalized on speaks if you don’t actually need the extra time to make arguments more in depth. If your words are unclear I'm not going to give you great speaks. Also, if you and your opponents need to see every card to flow them then it is likely I am not keeping up...keep that in mind.

** Evidence: ** I will not read a card after the round unless it is a point of contention in the round and the evidence is flagged for me in the last couple of speeches. Don't expect me to read a card to clarify what the card said, if it's a matter of clarity I will leave that up to the debaters.

** Presentation: ** Act professional and do not resort to rudeness in the round. Please dress professional and stand up in CX and in speeches.