Acle,+Connor

I attended Loyola Blakefield in Maryland, debated for four years, attended VBI, and competed at the TOC my senior year (2011). I now attend the University of Maryland where I’m majoring in philosophy.
 * Background **

Clear spreading is ideal. I try to intervene as little as possible. The round is yours so I am open to any argument and will try to evaluate it as objectively as possible. My default positions will change if you're winning those arguments in round.
 * General**

Speed is encouraged; I personally liked to debate as fast as I could. A few caveats though: - Try not to read at top speed if you're hitting a novice. You can still go fast, just make it bearable. - I won’t vote off of things not on my flow. If I can’t flow you I will shout “clear” as many times as necessary for me to flow you. Be-aware though that if I'm calling clear, I am missing arguments that I won't vote on, no matter how clearly they are articulated in the next speech. - Give me a sec when switching offs so i can find it on my computer
 * Speed **

I really enjoy good theory debates. Bad theory debates are at the other end of the spectrum. I also really like non-conventional theory shells. Nuance, specificity, and clarity are key for any shell. When reading theory, **make sure to slow down for your interp** so I know exactly what the shell is. An RVI is fine if you justify it well.
 * Theory **

The round is yours so whatever position you run, I'll try my best to evaluate it as objectively as possible. Creative arguments are always encouraged. I like policy style arguments that are appropriately adopted to LD and am fine with args like skep, permis, and aprioris. Bad/blippy permissibility debates annoy me, but I still often vote off of them, I just prefer for these arguments to be more developed. For crazy Ks read at a slower pace and explain them. I think critical args are often better than Ks, but Ks are still fine. Be careful when running pre-fait Ks; those debates can often end up too personal and weird. K's usually should, but often do not, have a ballot framework and normative framework (if you don't, explain why they aren't necessary for you to win). Running theory on post-fiat K alts is usually a good idea.
 * Other Args **

There needs to be two, three-minute CXs, but asking questions during prep is totally fine. The competitor should make what s/he reads available during his/her opponent's speeches, CX, and flex. I assume CX is binding.
 * CX/Flex**

I vote off what I have on the flow in the last rebuttals. This means that extensions should cover the argument that you want me to vote off of. I have a lower threshold for aff extensions, but they still need to cover the argument, just not as in-depth. Pre-written extensions can be good **although you must explain the embedded clash between your extensions and your opponents arguments; also don't blaze through pre-written extensions at top speed.**
 * Extensions **

Things I like that may result in higher speaks: - being extremely clear - running more nuanced, creative theory shells/rvis/interps/counter interps/voters - reading the dates of ALL* your evidence when you first read the card (*ie don't read the dates of just your recent evidence while neglecting to read the dates of old evidence) - reading author qualifications in the tags when it's relevant - unique plans or DAs with great evidence - deeply understanding the philosophy of your framework - being funny and aggressive - slowing down a lot for tags, names, and short analytics - saying "unquote" at the end of cards if it's not clear where it ends

Things I don’t like that may result in lower speaks: - blips with big implications - intentionally making your case confusing in the constructive and cx and making it abundantly clear once you get to the rebuttals (I will only lower speaks if I am sure that this is happening) - reading more than one page of evidence off of your computer without a flash drive or viewing computer

I will disclose my decision and give comments after the round. If you disagree with my decision I encourage you to ask me questions about why I voted the way I did. Keep it polite, but don’t be afraid to challenge why I made a certain decision. You can learn more and so can I when you ask questions and politely discuss/argue my decision. If you have any questions before or after the round don’t be afraid to ask or email me. My email is connorvbi at gmail.