Potischman,+Nina

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and currently attend Pomona.

I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and I understand the argument. I care much more about execution than the type of argument you're reading. I'll do my best to avoid intervening and evaluate the round the way I think debaters see it. **General**
 * SLOW DOWN WHEN I SAY CLEAR. If I yell clear a few times and you don't change the way you're speaking, I will miss arguments and I won't fill them in for you. Also, I'll nuke your speaks.
 * Prep ends when your flash drive leaves your computer/you send the email
 * I don't care if you sit
 * I have a high threshold for extensions if arguments are contested or if you're doing interaction. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
 * I reserve the right to vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
 * I won’t vote for new arguments, even if your opponent doesn’t point out that responses are new
 * I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
 * I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
 * I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
 * I'll yell clear as many times as I have to. I won't vote on things that I didn't hear/don't understand though, so **if I yell clear, there's a good chance I've missed some of your arguments.** It's your responsibility to make sure to repeat anything I might have missed.
 * If you blatantly misrepresent your own argument in a later speech, I won't evaluate the misrepresentation, even if it's dropped by your opponent. E.g. if you say your theory voter was neg specific in the 2nr, but it wasn't actually, I will evaluate the round as if you're voter is bidirectional.
 * **I generally don't flow card names, so don't just say "extend X card," since there's a good chance I don't have the name on my flow**


 * Theory**
 * if paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
 * I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them __if__ there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded
 * Slow down for interps/counterinterps
 * If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it, but I'll be annoyed and your speaks will suffer

**Clipping** **Framework**
 * If it's a clear violation, stop the round. If you have a recording that proves that your opponent was clipping I will drop them.
 * I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
 * Please weigh
 * Counterplans**


 * If no one asks about the status of a counterplan/counterplans and status is not discussed in later speeches, I'll presume that the function of a counterplan is to propose an alternative that would potentially be a better idea than the Aff. If the negative goes for multiple counterplans in the 2nr (or arguments about the preferability of the squo/the CP to the AC), each one functions as a potential option that would be preferable to the Aff, rather than an advocacy the neg is bound to. So if your counterplans contradict, I'll presume that you're not defending multiple contradictory counterplans at once. //**(That said, please don't do this. If you're going for multiple contradictory counterplans, explain what you're**// **doing).** Also, this is just a default if no one talks about the issue -- I'll evaluate any arguments that say that you should evaluate counterplans differently.

**Ks**
 * This is probably the area of debate that I’m least familiar with, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense (especially anything postmodern). If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you.
 * As a disclaimer, no one has explained Deleuze yet in a way that's made sense to me (beyond a super simplistic understanding). I will do my best. I've voted for people reading Deleuze. But also, it's really not my forte so if you decide to read it in front of me and don't explain it super clearly, it's your risk.

**Speaks** //Things that will get you high speaks//
 * Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
 * Good strategies
 * **Using CX effectively**
 * High argument quality
 * Generally being smart
 * Being funny (but please don’t try to be if you’re not)
 * Good overviews/crystallization
 * Good case debate — so many people just drop the Aff which doesn’t make sense to me
 * Persuasion (this won't factor into my decision, but definitely impacts speaks) -- persuasion can sound different depending on what kind of arguments you're reading, but the less monotone/more engaged you sound the better

//Things that will get you low speaks://
 * Not disclosing
 * **Tricks**
 * Lots of spikes/blippy arguments
 * Super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
 * Clearly not understanding your own positions
 * Being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
 * Academic dishonesty
 * Being unclear, __especially not slowing down when i clear you__
 * Super generic/un-innovative positions
 * Big strategic mistakes
 * Being condescending, especially when you're very clearly on the wrong side of an issue
 * Reading structural violence frameworks that are consequentialist while having exclusively consequentialist offense while claiming that consequentialism is bad. //**?????????????**//