Veeder,+Mark

I debated in high school for a small school in northern Utah, did parli for two years at the U of Utah, and now do policy debate for Weber State.

**Overall:**
I am not here to determine what type of debate you should have, this is your activity, not mine. The easiest way to get my ballot is to go for the arguments you are best at. If you can win that your argument is good/should be involved in debate, I am willing to vote for it. Its all about what you can justify in the round.

I probably am most familiar kritik literature in debate but that does not mean I understand every argument you want to run, nor does it mean I will automatically pick you up if you read a kritik. I also enjoy listening to a solid politics debate, and performance is awesome too. I will vote on T and theory, although I would prefer the debate to come down to other issues. Besides arguments like racism or patriarchy good (which still require some form of a response) there are no arguments I will categorically not vote for. **Go for the argument you are best at, that is the easiest way to win and get high speaks in front of me.**

Process, delay, and consult CP's are probably abusive, but I really like learning so if you can win that debate, go and and run them. I See above about how its all about what you can justify.

Theory is most often a reason to reject the arg not the team.

Be sure to warrant out why abuse, especially potential abuse, is bad for debate, dont just assert it.

I like well utilized defense more than most judges. Just make sure to contextualize the argument to your impact calculus.

Random things:

 * I like nice debaters over mean ones
 * Good evidence will take you far in front of me
 * I am fine with most speed, but I will clear you or say slow if I need.
 * Prep time ends when you are saving the flash drive, but no one (including your partner) should be typing
 * I hate the question "what can I do to get a thirty" The answer is debate well, and not ask that question.

Ask me for any more specific questions. Always feel free to talk to me outside of your round, especially if its about debate.

=**LD specific things**= For a good round, define how your standard makes me view the debate. I need to know how I am supposed to weigh impacts (including if impacts even matter). if everyone's standard is confusing and seems to be consequentialism, I will probably just vote using consequentialism.

Make sure you give me clear impact weighing and why I should prefer your standard. At the end of the round, if I have trouble giving my ballot to one person over the other, I will just vote for the person who I have to do the least amount of work for. and if everything is a wash, I presume aff (unless you tell me why presumption should go to the negative)

I dont really like strategies that rest on presumption, if you are going to just kick of case in the 1AR and then go for reasons why I presume aff is not that fun.

I expect people with laptops to flash their evidence (evidence meaning tags of cards and the cards themselves, and probably most interpretations on theory and t) before they speak, I will stop prep as soon as they are saving the file. If you dont have a flash drive, your opponent can read over your shoulder AND they can have your laptop during their prep (although they should give it back when they are done, they shouldn't just hold onto it during prep). If you just have paper and you go fast, you should pass pages. If your opponent doesnt care about any of these things, than neither do I, but if they ask for anything, such as passing pages and you say no, I will punish speaks pretty severely.
 * On flashing evidence in LD:**


 * Theory**: I tend to dislike arguments like "you should have done x," so arguments like you must run util aren't my favorite. I tend to think of that as a reason to prefer standards like util, but I prefer to view it as part of the framework debate rather than a separate theoretical issue. However, most debaters won't treat it like this, so I will often be forced to evluate it as a theoretical issue separate from other FW args. Overall, I think debaters that move away from hteir blocks and craft their arguments to the specifics in the round tend to better in these debates.

I am a pretty big sucker for education, so if people can win reasons why what they did was super educational and at least kind of fair, I would much rather be educated and listen to substantial discussions than vote off theory.

If you run theory against someone who doesn't know what it is, an easy way to gain speaker points in front of me is to be nice about it, and to help explain it as much as possible. If you can turn it into a learning experience for them, that is always good.

Easiest way to increase your speaks in front of me: high quality evidence. I think evidence is underutilized in LD, which makes me sad because I love ev.