Gundy,+Haleigh

I am a current LD debater who has competed both locally and on the national circuit. Stuff in italics is specific for local rounds, everything else applies to both. Short version: I like speed and progressive arguments. I vote solely on flow not presentation. I prefer evidence to analytics, but good analytics > poorly contextualized/explained evidence. I’ll vote on anything as long as it is explained/warranted/weighed well, UNLESS it is abusive or offensive. Long version: //**Circuit Args in Local** **Rounds:**// //Depends on the context. If both debaters agree at the beginning of the round to have a progressive round, then anything that I'd otherwise be okay with is on the table. If there's no previous discussion, I'm okay with basic theory (basic abuse checks, not anything really obscure), non-technical Ks (we can't expect every high schooler to have read Baudrillard), and pretty much any CPs/DAs (since the difference between these and most negs is usually just nomenclature in the first place, and too often we kill productive debate with the cp excuse).// //Basically, be fair and reasonable. I don't want to unnecessarily exclude good arguments, but I also don't want to put your opponent into an impossible position if they genuinely don't know how to debate a k. Ask me if you don't know whether you should run something.// Oppression Good (including, but not limited to, sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. good) Or “oppression doesn’t matter” Saying anything offensive in the manners above Lie/repeatedly say that your opponent dropped args they didn’t, lie about miscutting cards, etc. Speaks: I start at a 26 and add/subtract from there. High speaks: speed, progressive args, clear links to fw/rotb, humor, good weighing and clash Low speaks: being bigoted/offensive (yes, you will lose, and with low speaks), mocking your opponent, lying, bad argumentation
 * Framework**: I really like phil debates, especially virtue ethics and Kantian moral philosophy as I’ve read a lot of both. Reading obscure theory/phil/etc. is fine as long as you explain it well. //Framework is a way to evaluate the round, thus it is not a voter. If you try to have a value debate, keep in mind that there is almost no chance I’ll actually vote on it. If you say justice>morality or vice versa, that is a major blow to your framework debate, as it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of values in ld and philosophy as a whole. If you say your definition of the SAME VALUE (Unless their definition is super abusive) is better, you'll likely be dropped as this demonstrates a lack of understanding of one of the most basis rules of ld.// As long as there is a clear weighing mechanism, V/VC structure is unnecessary. With that said, I think fw can be an easy path to the ballot as long as you consistently link back to it and make your advocacy a clear narrative.
 * Presentation**: I prefer speed and can flow spreading. If you are unclear, I’ll call clear once then stop flowing, which means I cannot/will not vote on any of your arguments. //People that go fast will get speaks boost because of lay bias in Ohio. Going slow will not hurt you, so if you prefer going slowly I don’t care.// I’m fine with reading off laptop/whatever.
 * Argumentation**: WARRANT AND WEIGH!!! I literally don’t care if you win 90% of the flow, if your opponent does a better job of explaining why the 10% they won matters more, they'll win. Likewise, no matter how many arguments they have, if there’s no warrant (carded or analytic) I won’t vote off it. Claim, warrant, impact is the only way to go. Also, please have clash- second rebuttals should NOT be indistinguishable from the first.
 * Ks**: Love them. If you run them, I will like you, a lot. K affs are great. I’m more familiar with IdPol and cap than high theory/policy oriented ks, but if you explain them well I have no problem voting on them.
 * Theory/T:** I like it a lot more now than I used to, but if you’re running genuinely frivolous theory/T and your opponent calls you out, that’s sufficient for me to drop the arg. Disclosure theory is pretty awful, unless you’re small school hitting a big debate school and they didn’t disclose, because that’s just ridiculous. I default to drop the argument, unless you tell me otherwise.
 * CPs/DAs:** Both fine with me, YES even in lay/local rounds.
 * Evidence**: If you miscut cards, I’ll drop the arg, and your speaks. I won’t drop you, unless your opponent makes a good case for my doing so.
 * What I Will Drop:**