Rowe,+Dan

Round Procedure stuff:
I prefer email chains when possible. Please add me: rowedan@gmail.com Flash time does not count as prep. I will try to help you if CX is always open CX and prompting is okay. If a tournament has a rule that says otherwise and you hate debate enough to try to get a cheap win out of it is up to you to complain to tab about it.

Speaker Points I have adjusted these upwards over the last year. I think a 28.5 is average. 28.9 means I think you should clear. 29 and above means I think you should get close to top speaker. This changes if the tournament in question doesn't allow for tenths. I would probably still start with 28.5. 28 meaning huge mistakes were made and 29 meaning you should clear, with 29.5 being reserved for the best speakers.

=
By default I evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations with predictable limits being the biggest impacts. That said, I haven't seen many compelling topicality arguments on this years topic, so common sense does play a role in how i view these debates. I will deviate from this if you provide a compelling reason why topicality isn’t a voting issue or if reasonability, etc is a better way to evaluate it. =====

=
K's are fine. Explain to me how the alternative solves the aff and the impact to the K. Not solving either of those things makes it harder for you to win, unless you have a compelling framing argument as to why that shouldn't be important. =====

Identity Arguments
As long as they engage and answer objections to the content or form of the arguments adequately then pretty much any argument is fine.

=
I evaluate theory in an offense defense paradigm based on competing interpretations unless you prove I shouldn't. I think conditionality is bad, but I'm not sure what a good alternative is, so I rarely get to exercise this bias. =====