Glenn,+Kelsey

I formerly coached LD at James Logan High School in Union City, CA.

I'm a guy, so don't get your hopes up on the way to the round, fellas.

In case anyone cares, I debated on the circuit for four years, graduating in 2012. I went kinda fast, I ran all kinds of stuff, I broke occasionally and I beat my fair share of bidded debaters.

I think I'm super intelligent and love nothing more than knowing that other people are being forced to read what I have to say, so I'll write as much as I can fit into this box.

I have always been able to spread much faster than I could ever hope to flow, and frankly was astonished by my judges' ability to keep up with my incessant rambling in-round. I was never a terribly good flower, and often relied on page passing and CX to flow when I was writing responses. That doesn't mean I can't handle speed, I would simply suggest you begin at a slight spread and ease into it (EDIT: that's what she said!). SLOW DOWN FOR: tags, dense philosophy, numbers you actually want me to write down, and especially theory. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT read short (1-2 sentence standard) theory shells at the same pace as cards. I will not flow them and you will be sad. I will yell "slow" as many times as it takes to get you to an acceptable speed so long as you seem to be trying, but no more than three times if you keep going back up after I've delivered my warning.
 * Speed**

I reserve the right to reject a blatantly unwarranted argument. This is distinct from an incorrect warrant (one proven wrong by more recent evidence or logical inconsistency) in that an unwarranted argument is simply a claim (and sometimes impact). This especially includes interpretations which are built upon "common knowledge" about the topic or activity (e.g. "presume aff because of structural disadvantages" is not a warranted argument unless you articulate what those disadvantages are and why they are rectified by presumption). On the issue of evidence and academic honesty, I keep the decision of whether or not to drop a "cheater" at my discretion and will base that decision on the severity of the offense. Blatantly miscut evidence will be swiftly dealt with, but that is distinct from claiming an incorrect impact from an argument you misunderstood. I expect citations upon request of myself or your opponent and am receptive to theoretical arguments against missing cites when they are actually pertinent to the round (my threshold for these is higher when asking for cites of analytic or philosophical evidence whose virtue is typically not related to their source). I expect extensions to have a claim, warrant and IMPACT in every speech, but my threshold for meeting these is a bit lower for 1ARs.
 * Warrants, Evidence and Extensions**

I've never been a fan nor understood the purpose of most protracted truth testing vs. comparative worlds debates and tried to skirt the issue when I was a debater. I default to my own personal amalgamation of the two, since I see most topics (especially ought topics) as making a moral statement of //truth// that can be justified by proving that the affirmative or negative world is //comparatively// superior. If you so desire, I am open to arguments as to why I ought to respect the difference (usually this only applies to negative debaters relying on truth statements), but you need to justify to me why I ought to utilize your preferred metric.
 * Truth Testing vs. Comparative Worlds**

I was raised in a vehemently anti-theory environment. However, by some act of divine intervention I emerged the chosen one and am more than willing to listen to any theoretical argument so long as it is clear, warranted and VALID (read: necessary). I'm not much on potential abuse, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. On a related note, I'd much rather you both agree to reasonability as the means for evaluating theory (and I WILL DEFAULT TO IT in the absence of argumentation, since I view theory as begging the judge to "legitimately" intervene anyway), but I understand the merit of competing interpretations and will gladly adopt that paradigm if persuaded to do so. I understand theory is a strategic tool, however, I, like many others, do not care to hear your team's entire theory file dumped against a stock case. I dislike paragraph theory, and prefer shell structure, but I am not unwilling to hear it so long as it still justifies why I ought to vote on theory over topical debate. It's difficult to describe a precise threshold for theory arguments, but I am much more willing to hear defensive theoretical arguments related to topic interpretation (Topicality) than any other kind. My biggest pet peeve as a debater was opponents who read bullet pointed theory arguments (short sentences), primarily because I couldn't flow them, but also because it usually just served to avoid debating. I am very open to RVIs, but they need to be in cases of legitimate theoretical abuse: I will not vote someone down for losing a theory argument that seemed earnest, only an RVI which makes specific reference to the abusiveness of their opponent.
 * Theory/Topicality**

__- K's, C's, Dense Philosophy, etc.:__ I ran a few K's while I debated so I am not entirely unfamiliar with some common K literature. That being said, I think it should go without saying by now that if you're going to be reading verbose philosophy, you should have clear, slow tags and go at a slightly toned down rate of speaking. I really hate debaters who read complicated (this includes straightforward positions with complex writing) positions that don't become clear until the 1AR/2NR. If I can't understand a position by the end of CX, I am not unwilling to ignore it. If I don't understand it, but your opponent by some magic does (i.e. your trick didn't work or I'm just the dumb one), then I will use the remaining speeches to construct an understanding and vote based off of it. If I don't understand it, your opponent doesn't understand it and I perceive the strategy of waiting until the 1AR/2NR to explain as taking place, I will either lower speaks and/or ignore all subsequent extensions and cross applications of the arguments in question. Don't not read cool positions because of this. I love hearing critical philosophy and unconventional moral theories. Just make sure you run these positions for their merit and not their syllabic density.
 * Case Positions**

__-Unconventional Case Structures:__ I ran plans, counterplans, advocacies, K Affs, syllogisms and even a narrative once, so I am entirely open to case positions which rely on unique or non-traditional structures. However, I believe there is a reasonable expectation of value/standard structures (which intuitively meet both syllogistic standards for truth testing and weighing needs for comparative worlds paradigms) which must be accounted for when running these positions. Specifically, I much rather you justify the use of these casewriting style in case than out. It saves time on the theory debate and also helps me understand how I evaluate impacts in the event that your opponent runs a different style of case without properly addressing the discontinuity.With regard to K's and similar positions, the most important thing you need to do when running these is explain to me why my ballot should be used to change this tournament's discourse on transgendered undocumented alien drug addicts rather than voting for the person who proved the topic true or false.

__- Other "Weird" Positions:__ I've been a devil's advocate my whole life, it's why I joined debate. Unlike a lot of "tab" judges, I try my best to never limit debaters in terms of the content of their arguments. For example, I, with my depraved debate/online-gaming wombo combo sense of amorality, am entirely willing to vote on holocaust good, because if the holocaust is really as bad as everyone says it is then your opponent shouldn't have a tough time beating it back. I will not reduce your speaks or vote you down for the positions you run if they are interesting and substantiated.

As I've said before, I reserve speaks as my disciplinary tool in the event of what I perceive to be abusive or inappropriate conduct in round. This includes offensive language (I don't care if you curse, in fact you're invited to if somehow it makes your argument better, I just don't want to hear personal insults or epithets thrown around), strategies that are grounded in confusion rather than argument, and a myriad of other things you can probably figure out on your own so long as your momma raised you right. Aside from punishment speaks, however, I tend to focus on word economy, strategy, case innovation, and personality (humor, style, memorable one-liners etc.) to determine speaks. Keep in mind the speaks I give are a reflection of my perception of your performance in the round I saw you, and not of my perception of your overall debate skill. In an effort to create more consistent and less arbitrary standards for speaks, I try to align the speaks I give with what I perceive to be the most widely accepted rubric:
 * Speaks**

30 - Watching you debate was like witnessing the birth of Christ. You will probably win the tournament unless God the Father is debating in the next flight. 29.5 - You were super awesome and will probably go very far but I'm afraid other judges will think less of me if I give out 30s. 29 - You were impressive and I think you can hang with the best of 'em in late outrounds. 28.5 - This is usually the high/low average necessary to break with two losses (in a 6-8 prelim tournament), and indicates I expect you can break. 28 - You were good, but I don't see you clearing over other good debaters if push comes to shove. 27.5 - You seem like a competent arguer, but you need to make some adjustments to be competitve in circuit debate 27 - Average. Which, as most academically focused high schoolers will tell you, means you have a ways to go. Indicates a need for substantial improvement in circuit techniques and probably some work on understanding of debate in general. 26 - Not much to say except you were just kind of bad. 25 and below - I reserve these speaks for punitive purposes. If you get anything in this range, I will explain it to you as a part of my disclosure.

That's about it. Ask me in round if you have any other questions.