Ross,+Austin

**Background**
I debated at Fayetteville HS from 2009-2012. I attend the University of Arkansas, and I judge regularly for Fayetteville and Little Rock Central. You can contact me here if you have any questions.

**Big Picture**
The great thing about debate is that we get to make up our own rules. Outside of the time restrictions and the rules of general politeness (which are flexible), I'm going to let you do and run pretty much whatever you want. Formality is for fascists, anyway. Whatever you put on the flow, I'll evaluate it objectively. That being said, I'm not without my biases, and in all honesty I'm probably a better judge for you if you're running more kritikal arguments. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear your case arguments, I just don't necessarily think they're the most strategic. If you can make a compelling, competitive, innovative argument with your inherency hits, then by all means, lay it on me. Those are the traits I'm most looking for in the round: strategize your way ahead of your opponents, and do it in a way that interests me. I'll flow as quickly as you can speak, but slow down on your tags, and you're probably not going to want to speed through complicated analysis. If you're going too quickly, I will yell at you.

Framing/Theory
Framework debates are my favorite. On both sides of the debate, and especially in the rebuttals, tell me what the round means. Show me the difference between the world of the affirmative and the world of the negative. Crystallize and group your arguments in the last two speeches; paint a big picture. That's the analysis that's going to win you the round (but don't neglect the line by line). Education usually outweighs fairness. Until someone in the round tells me otherwise, my ballot is a referendum on whether or not the plan is a good idea. I'm not a big fan of new advocacies in the 2NC, and I generally think the neg should only be defending one advocacy in the 2NR. You probably don't want me to judge your performance arguments.

T
The neg has to meet a pretty high threshold on T to get my ballot. That being said: T is always a voter, and never an RVI. If you want me to pull the trigger on T, you should devote the majority of your 2NR to it. If not, you're wasting your time. A good standards debate is where you're going to win T.

DA
Politics is a blast, but keep your scenario reasonable. Everyone loves a good case-specific disadvantage: it shows that you've done your research. Generic DAs are what they are, but have a good link and uniqueness scenario.

CP
Of all the arguments in the neg's arsenal, counterplans are my least favorite. Agent/Consult/Condition CPs are lame and probably abusive, but I'll evaluate them objectively. Theory is always an excellent response to the CP.

Speaks
The ballot is objective, and speaker points are completely the opposite. Making a bad argument and winning will get you the ballot, but not high speaks. Organization is important--you're getting ranked higher if your speech was easy for me to follow on the flow. Don't jump around, signpost for me, etc. Unless you do something unethical/offensive/violent, the floor for speaks is a 25. The strategy of your speech is just as important to me as the style here, so the more commanding your control of the round, the more likely you are to get high speaks. Project confidence: half of winning is acting like you already have. Don't be a dick, but don't be afraid to have fun.