Stoker,+Elizabeth

I debated VLD four years at Martin High School in Arlington, TX. I am now attending Brandeis University, serving as an assistant debate coach with Needham High School in Needham, MA. I have limited experience in parliamentary debate.

Approach:
 * LD has a special place in my heart. I consider its uniqueness largely to be a function of its emphasis on value; that is to say, if your whole case could function logically and efficiently without your V/C, I am not predisposed to like it very much.
 * That having been said, I also highly appreciate the freedom LD provides. Go hog wild. Drag in whatever arguments you think are going to help you, and in whatever styles - nontraditional, kritiks, narratives, whatever - as long as you can set it up clearly and justify it.

Theory:
 * I love theory. If you're going to throw in chunks of theory into an existing framework, make sure you clarify the delineation between the two. Theory that can be easily confused with standard argumentation is poorly constructed theory. However, I do believe in the value of discourse/education/etc in debate, so if you're worried about bringing out theory, don't be: just be specific and clear with it.

CPs:
 * I can deal with them and I don't hate them. However, please make sure that whatever you're doing with them still actually impacts in the v/c framework. In that vein, make sure it's always competitive: PICs tend to be more competitive than others, for example, and I'm extremely predisposed to a dislike of most conditional CPs.

Topicality:
 * I dig any and all creative approaches to topicality arguments. If you can justify your interpretation, no matter how bizarre or outlandish the interpretation might be, I'm not going to immediately drop you or be oversensitive to the issue unless/until your opponent nails it. In other words, I'm no more hostile to topicality arguments than any others, and I like to see a bit of topicality discussion going on in any case.

Argumentation:
 * Logic is always going to trump cards/evidence, especially when the argument heavily impacts the v/c debate.
 * A dropped argument is a true argument.
 * A new argument is a non-argument.
 * **If you want to win the round, here is how: 'this is my contention x; this is my value...; this is my standard...; in response to opponent's contention x...; sign posting and clarity will make my flow flawless and help ensure your clean win.**

Judging Calculus:
 * So here is how the judging calculus breaks down:
 * Guest Calculus: I weigh a standard you two have agreed upon. If you don't agree on one,
 * V/C: I judge purely on the outcomes of the various value/criterion arguments made in round. If the arguments were inconclusive,
 * Net Benefits: I look at benefits surrounding major in-round issue. Here is where probability and magnitude play in boldly. If net benefits were unexplained/extremely muddled/even,
 * I look to any leftover burden/presumption arguments.

Odds/Ends:
 * This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Don't be a drag and ruin it by being a poor sport.
 * I appreciate humor in-round. If we can all be as relaxed as possible, we end up approaching the resolution on multiple levels, as we engage the round as much as agents of our affirmative/negative assignments as ourselves.
 * There are always two round going on: the debate competition and the oratory competition. I do not fear giving out low-point wins; it just happens rarely. I also hesitate to hand out 30s, but I'm extremely impressed and highly persuaded by clear, effective oratory.
 * **SPEED IS NOT AN OFFENSIVE STRATEGY.** If you spread your case and end up with thirty seconds to a minute remaining in your speech, I'm going to assume you were reading quickly in order to prevent your opponent from taking down all of your arguments properly. This is a bad idea and poor sportsmanship. Use speed wisely or kiss your speaks goodbye.

Anything else, ask in round!