Owen,+Alaina

I debated for four years at Dobson High School in Mesa, Arizona, and I am now a senior debating at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona. I've been coaching on and off for the past two years and judging for the past three.

During my years at Dobson, I did LD for two years, CX for a year and a half, and PF for a half year. I also competed in Congressional debate for all four years of high school. Currently, I compete in the open level of college parli and am ranked in the top 50 debaters in the nation.

You can spread, you can talk slow, you can be kritikal, you can run performance, I really don't care.

Don't clip cards. Don't cheat. You may think you're clever and cute or whatever, but I'm really good at noticing when shit isn't going down how it's supposed to.

**If you're looking for the short reason to pref me as a judge:** I'm open to all argumentation; granted that the argument is presented correctly and successfully. I will vote off of whoever proves to me that they have won the most arguments/have the greatest impacts; whichever is made the focus of the round. Don't let me sit and make the decision at the end of the round, because if you do, you probably won't like the outcome. Tell me exactly where on the flow that I am picking you up and I will. Extra speaks if you make puns about pop punk music or the racist cheeto.  The rest of the page is how I value different arguments in their respective debate so that you can try to adapt to that if that's what you want to do.

The affirmative in general needs to be topical, but I love non-topical/kritikal affs. I can **promise** you that I will not vote for you if I do not know what I am voting for. Also, be sure to include a plan text or an advocacy or something along those lines and be clear when stating tags, that way I can label my papers/excel spreadsheet and flow your arguments in the right areas.
 * Affirmative Arguments: **

**Negative Arguments:** My job is to look at the evidence presented and the arguments made (along with however much analysis that you choose to provide) and decide which team did the better debating. Plain and simple. Don't make me do any work.

__When it comes to CX__, I value 1NCs that have an equal amount of on-case as they do off. You need to have strong offense, but you also need some defense coming out of the speech. Like, if you're going to go four off; T, CP, DA, K, make sure you also tell me how that applies to the on-case argumentation. Otherwise, I'm literally just going to have negative flows and not know what I just spent that time doing. Also, please don't use the block as a time suck. 1) that's super douchy and I do not value or tolerate douchy-ness. At all. 2) That is the most valuable amount of time in a debate round and if you’re not winning the block you better hope you have good enough karma to pull through in the 2NR. **Do not,** feel like you need to extend every argument made in the block. Kick things please, sacrifice bad arguments in favor of analysis. 2NRs need to be both winning arguments and closing doors. They're hard, which is why you need to be diligent and prepared in the block.

__In LD__, I love NCs that make sense. Sometimes they don't and that's the point when I tune out. Make sure your NC clashes with the AC or at least make arguments that make it seem like there's some type of clash.

__In PF__, I barely tolerate PF. Also none of the following arguments should find their way into a PF debate. Please make sure that none of this happens. Thanks.

I hate topicality. I feel like it's whiny and gets muddled really easily. That being said:
 * Topicality: **
 * Tell me why topicality is A Priori (if that's what you want to go for, which you should.)
 * Show articulated abuse
 * Topicality is not an RVI
 * Your interp needs to be solid and your violation can't just be a loose connection to the AC.
 * Please don't go all in on topicality. I will cry.

If you're going to run theory on anything please note that:
 * Theory: **
 * I am very receptive to condo bad arguments.
 * Standards need to be attacked individually
 * Slow down and make sure I am getting your arguments, especially if you wanna sit on it later on in the debate.
 * In the last speeches everything needs to be impacted (ie why is conditionality bad) and what does that mean for the debate round/round as a whole. Frame these debates please.

__ D ____ on't concede your politics DA. __ Uniqueness controls direction of the link, and link/link turn debates need to be fleshed out and compared by **both** sides. Give me reasons to prefer your turns over their warrants. DA's that control/solve impact scenarios of the affirmative will almost always win my ballot. If your disad cannot access an impact, you better have case turns, a counterplan, or some super strong defense on that scenario. This is an area where I am more pliant on spin of evidence, because I understand that politics, sadly, never go as planned. I will look at the evidence if I feel the debate has not been resolved for one side or the other, but how you spin your evidence will definitely be taken into consideration when/if I read the evidence.
 * DAs: **

Obviously, counterplans should solve the affirmative, be competitive via a net benefit (usually the DA), and make sense. I don't run consult counterplans and neither should you UNLESS you have legitimate reason behind it. You can get away with anything you can defend. Be sure to weigh and analyze the solvency deficits to the affirmative, and why permutations do/do not work.
 * CPs: **

In order to win a K debate, you need to know what’s going on. Framework needs to be debated, no matter what side you’re on. You should always want to win framework. It gives you a lot of offense and helps me frame the round. If you have a question about a specific K, you should ask before round. I prefer analysis over evidence on K debates, but there still needs to be evidence to back up your claims. Please have a solid role of the ballot and bring it through the entirety of the debate.
 * Kritiks: **

Speaks are rewarded to good, organized debaters. I also think that your ability to eloquently explain an argument will benefit you. Finally, strategy plays a huge roll in deciding points, and I will reward 1NRs who kick out of arguments in a way that screws the affirmative, or vice-versa. Offer trigger warnings if you're going to speak on a touchy subject. Don't be offensive, discriminatory, or make anyone in the round uncomfortable with your language and/or behavior. I will not tolerate it and will be sympathetic if the other team decides to be kritikal in response. I will drop a team quicker than you can apologize.

If you have specific questions, ask me before the round starts.