Thomas,+Dustin

I graduated from Monticello High School in 2014. I debated for 4 years on the national circuit, finishing my career with a solid 0-4 record in bid rounds. I now attend Boston College.

TLDR: Run whatever arguments you'd like. I like a good theory debate.

Overview: I'm tab, except for a few arguments which I will address later. Do what you think will win you the round. I will do my best to evaluate whatever arguments you present to me. The best way to win my ballot is to clearly explain the path of least resistance to the ballot. I will vote for whichever side I need to do less work in scripting an RFD.

Framework: I am fine with most frameworks, but if you run a something that is considered "denser" philosophy, there is a good chance you will need to do more work explaining your framework in simpler terms. If I don't have any idea of what you're saying in 1AC/1NC, it will make it extremely difficult for me to use for framework for evaluating the round. I won't accept frameworks that magically become clear in the 1AR/NR/2AR.

Skep: Love it. I am always curious to see **new** ways people warrant skep, but I am also happy to hear the traditional justifications run well. I'd prefer you run this as your initial position, but skep triggers are also cool. On that note...

Tricks: I will give good speaks if you can properly and logically execute good tricks. That being said, you run the risk of me not understanding how your trick functions if you cannot explain it well. Please slow down and explain to me very clearly the full extent of your trick(s) and its/their implications if you are going all in on tricks.

Theory/T: Love it. Run it if their is abuse, or for strategic purposes. I really don't care if people think it's "ruining the activity," because it adds another layer to the debate and encourages people to get creative. I default to competing interpretations, drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. These are default that are true in the absence of arguments telling me otherwise. On a similar note, I will vote off paragraph theory if it is won, but just like theory I need an interp, violation, standard, voter, and reason why it's drop the debater/drop the arg.

Speed: I am probably fine with most speed, but I'll let you know by yelling "speed" if it's too fast. Likewise, I'll yell "clear" if you are unclear. After I yell clear twice, I will begin deducting speaks. Please, please, please. Slow down for author names and take a breath after so I have time to get the name flowed. The same goes for plan/counterplan texts, theory violations, things of that nature

DA/CP/Plans: Fine and dandy. I love interesting DAs. When it comes to CPs, assume that I know nothing in terms of conditionally, perms, etc. I was not the best debating counter-plans simply because of my lack of knowledge about the nuances of them. Plans are great, just slow down to a speaking speed for the plan text.

K's: I ran my share of K's, but I also do not fully understand some of the denser K lit, i.e. Nietzsche, Butler, etc. If you decide to run a K, make sure you either explain how your impacts function under your opponents framework. If you run your own framework with the K like most people do, then please make the way in which I evaluate arguments very explicit.

Micropol: I will not vote off of it. Don't try to run it in front of me. If you have any questions about whether I'd consider your position to be micropolitical, I suggest you ask me before the round.

Speaks: I am not like most judges. If you are extremely clear and articulate your words, whether or not you decide to spread in front of me, will be how I determine my speaks. Other things to get you good speaks in order of importance to me: being funny (you can be somewhat snarky, but not downright rude), good strategic choices, being genuinely nice to each other (you'll both be rewarded).

FINAL AND IMPORTANT NOTE: ** HAVE FUN! **