Kieserman,+Dean

Conflicts: Collegiate and one other person, i forget who but they know so strike me. About: I did Varsity LD for three years and broke consistently junior and senior year at tournaments. I was ok but not great. I went to Collegiate in New York I graduated spring 2016. Quick pref cheat sheet: 1 - Theory 1- 2 - Kritik/LARP - combination is more like a one though 3 - Framework heavy aff - like anything more than koorsgard got me confused, and even then she sometimes befuddles me 4 - Sketch (triggers), Weird kritiks (D and G, Baudrillard) 5 - Nothing that i know of

A bit more depth Theory - I did a lot of this in highschool mainly because i was lazy and didn't do any prep. I default to competing interps drop debater and no RVI but these are defaults so you make args i listen to them. I don't really get what reasonability is, even with a threshold it usually seems subjective. A lot of people seem to dislike frivolous theory, i actually enjoy the intricacies of these debates (the caveat being both debaters actually know what they are doing on the flow). As in, if you know what you're doing on the theory level, no matter what argument you're defending/what the abuse story is, i won't mind. One thing I dislike about theory is the use of blocks/backfiles, i enjoy round specific interps. Adding on to that, i'm more compelled by weighing links back to fairness and education than stating unilaterally fairness>education. Kritik - When i did prep I ran these. I'm more familiar with gender related lit but I debated on the circuit so have heard of most stock Ks. I like Ks that are very specific to the aff. I dislike Ks that are either a) you are anthro with the link being you used gov action or b) you affirm the topic so you bite. LARP - weigh Framework heavy aff - slower and maybe explain a bit more detail on what the tags, syllogism of the case is. I am totally comfortable not voting for something, despite it being dropped, if I don't understand it. At that point, its on you as the debater. Sketch - Despite my like for theory i dislike sketch, it doesn't seem to be to decide who is the better debater in the round. I'm not going to not vote for it but speaks will be tanked. I'm not a huge fan of skep, but don't hate it. If you run it in front of a performance though yeah thats as bad/worse than sketch. Weird kritiks - Porfavor no. As i said with framework heavy aff, if i don't understand it I won't vote for it and most of the times i won't understand it.

Disclosure - I was never a huge fan of disclosure, I'm not super compelled by disclosure theory. The only times i think it is reasonable is when you are running a plan or reading T, otherwise i don't think its an issue. Also please get an in round violation, whether it be a picture or admittance by your opponent. Speaks: I had a speech impediment so i will not solely judge the round based off of actual quality of speaking, but whatever seems best. If you make amazing strategic decisions but are a poor speaker i will judge you on your strategy, if you make bad strategy choices but speak eloquently i will judge you on your speech. I probably average around a 29 I'd say but I've only judged one or two tournaments.

I tank speaks for lying