Seitz,+Hunter

I debated for Barrington High School in Illinois for all 4 years of high school, and now debate college policy for Cornell University in New York. I debated exclusively national circuit LD my junior and senior years and attended camp every summer at NSD or VBI, so safe to say I am comfortable with most arguments run on the circuit.

__**Current**__ **Conflicts:** Barrington TC, St Thomas NW


 * TL;DR:** The debate round is for yours to do whatever you want with it, I will vote however you tell me to, with some caveats for a very small subset of arguments i dislike or for arguments that i believe make the community an unsafe place for other debaters

__**Short version**__ - read this if you didn't have a chance to read my full paradigm and you don't know who i am I absolutely hated non-tab judges who would gut check arguments just because they did not like them or found them uneducational, so safe to say i will try my hardest to never intervene unless there is literally no way to make a decision without intervention.

I default competing interps, drop the debater, and yes to RVIs but can be persuaded by literally giving me a single warrant why I should change my paradigm. If you read reasonability you must give me a brightline or i will not vote on it.

LARP is cool, tricks & friv theory is cool, the K is cool, skep is cool, i will vote on anything.

__**Long version**__

I was never the best at flowing as a debater and relied mostly on flashing or reading over my opponent's shoulder. So i'd say go roughly 7/10 of your max speed. Basically don't speak as if this is the finals of the TOC, slow down for authors and tags, and you should be fine.

__**Theory/Topicality:**__ I'm a 1N in policy and almost every single 1NC I've given this year have had a T shell or framework (theory) so safe to say i'm down to see a good theory or T debate.

I default: - competing interps - drop the debater - no RVIs

But as i said above, this can be changed by literally a single argument that warrants why I should adopt a different paradigm ie. reasonability, RVIs good, etc, however if you read reasonability be warned: you MUST give me some brightline to weigh on or i will default back to competing interps.

Slow down for interps and violations, almost to conversational speed. You only lose 2-3 seconds but it can make all the difference if the round comes down to a text issue with your interp. Same goes for standards, not the justifications for the standards, just the text of said standard.

__**Tricks:**__ As much as I read tricks during my career, policy debate has kind of shifted my view on them. Honestly I find them kind of boring and uneducational now, but i will still vote on them. Given that I read them a lot and I absolutely hated non-tab judges in my high school career, I have no choice but to vote on them. However, try to be at least creative. If you read the same 10 or 12 theory spikes that Scarsdale has been reading since '08 I will be inwardly groaning.

__**LARP:**__ I'm a policy debater so a good util/LARP debate would make me a very happy judge.

If you read a bunch of disads, I'd appreciate it if you do analytic weighing for one over the other. You don't have to but it will help me weigh relevant offense, but i won't dock speaks if you don't do this.

Slow down on the tags and authors for cards, this is more important for larping than other arguments.

__**Kritiks:**__ Same as for util debates, being that I debate policy, I'm hella down to see a K throwdown. I've read almost every single type of K you can think of: asian conscientization, antiblackness, DnG, Cap, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Lacan, etc. That being said, just because i've read cases that use these authors, don't expect me to be able to understand every single K that could possibly be read in front of me. If you are reading a super dense continental philosopher make sure you explain it really well.

__**Misc/Speaks:**__ I give speaks based on both clarity and strat choices, though weigh strat significantly heavier. For example, if you are unclear but have a good strat i might give you a 28.5 or 29 while if you are incredibly clear but you majorly screw up i will give you a 27.

I will call slow/clear/etc without penalty to speaks provided there is an audible/visible effort to adapt to my input. If you are in the middle of a block of theory spikes or reading a tag, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat the last sentence since if i'm calling slow/clear I probably missed that last bit.

__Scale:__ 30 - perfect speech: there were no errors in your strat; I expect you to make at least the bid round based on that speech

29 - good speech: you were slightly unclear or had a less than ideal strat but still with good execution; you will definitely clear and could reach the bid round or bid

28 - decent speech: you were either unclear or made an error in your strat that may/may not be the reason you lost; you could clear but it is unlikely you will bid

27 - bad speech: you were unclear and made no attempt to adapt or made multiple errors; it is unlikely for you to clear on that speech

26 - terrible speech: you were really unclear and i missed much of your arguments or your strat choice made absolutely no sense or you conceded multiple key arguments; i expect you to go 3-3 at best based on that speech

25 or less - if you get a 25 or less from me you did something expressly against my paradigm or made offensive remarks. The reason will be on my ballot and i will mention it in my oral RFD.