Spiegel,+Elijah

TL;DR: Philosophy nerd will vote on however much you can impact to the standing moral framework(s). Theory/K/etc will be voted on if you explain it well.

Background: I debated Lincoln Douglas for 4 years in TCFL, (a relatively non-progressive league).

K/T/etc: I will vote on K's, Theory, etc. but explain fully what you are doing. I do not necessarily share the same vocabulary that has been borrowed from Policy, but if you make it clear how the argument progresses I'll vote on it.

Speed: I do not flow Policy-level spread, but you can go much faster than with a lay judge. Be very sure to enunciate the author names. You can move faster if there's an email chain, but in any case I'll call "clear" if I cannot follow.

Weighing: If there's no tech-y K stuff happening, I vote purely on what impacts you can fully chain to the VP. An extremely well-executed argument that can't impact to the standing moral framework will be unfortunately dropped. Make the voting issues clear at the end.

Speaks: Present the best image of **yourself** as an orator that you can. If your form of charisma is fiery passion and a commanding presence, don't hold back. If you're the rational and cold-as-ice voice of truth, go for it. If your go-to method is to disarm with warmth and a smile, do that. Everyone has a natural charisma. Show me the highest form of yours.

Personal preferences: I study philosophy at Stanford, so I often find myself voting on moral framework. This is primarily because I see many debaters drop the ball by tacitly assuming judges will vote util impacts. I will only do so if you tell me why I should, and once you do I will. I will be very attentive to philosophical arguments, (e.g. I voted down an Aff with an acceptable moral framework due to an epistemology challenge from the Neg that went unanswered.) Thinkers I am very fond of include Parfit, Deleuze, Butler, Spinoza, Levinas, Buber, Lacan, and Badiou. If you have been sitting on a fun case based on those kinds of schools of thought, feel free to run it. I don't award any extra points for namedropping someone I like, but if you've been holding back for fear of the judge not understanding the concepts, feel free to let yourself go here. Of course, be sure to explain sufficiently well for your interlocutor.