Wareham,+Jack

=**I am having a really hard time understanding spreading. Please slow down __//A LOT,//__ especially** **on tags, author names, and short analytics.**=


 * Bonus speaker points for tasteful movie references (at my discretion).**

I care more about execution than style of argumentation, which means do what you’re best at, not what you think I would like to hear the most. I read mostly util and theory but I’m familiar with all the common philosophy/K stuff. If your position is a little more “out of the box” please over-explain it.

Theory is fun if you read it well.

Tricks are boring, please spare me. I will vote on them if they are clearly warranted/explained, but don't expect me to be really happy, and I'd always rather see a case with really good evidence.

Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves the computer or you send the e-mail.

Things you will get lower speaker points for: -not disclosing -being unnecessarily rude -strategies designed to minimize clash (huge dumps of blippy arguments, spike heavy cases) -evasion in CX ("you can make that argument," "what's an a priori," etc.) -low quality arguments with bad warrants

I will try to treat each issue as “objectively” as possible. However, like every judge, I have certain biases. It might benefit you to align your arguments with my biases. However, I’ll still be happy if you persuasively convince me to depart from them. -the negative should prove the proactive desirability of a competitive option to the aff -“jurisdictional” claims about the judge are almost always false -disclosure is good -spirit of the interpretation is better than text of the interpretation -theory and the ‘role of the ballot’ operate on the same layer -fairness is a voter