Janisch,+Bailey

NOTE: I have been out of the game for over a year now with little to no contact with any debate. I can still understand high level arguments, but not at the speed that I could before. If you would like your argument to be understood fully and on the flow, SLOW DOWN. You do not need to speak like a politician, but dont spread.

I debated LD for 3 years for Bingham High School in Utah, received (unfortunately) one bid to qualify for the ToC, and cleared at multiple ToC bid tournaments.

=Summary:= I debated almost exclusively progressive throughout my debate career, and prefer to watch progressive style debates. However, this does not mean I have a bias in the way I will vote. I graduated, I don't get to determine the style of debate you take part in, meaning whether you want to take part in a traditional or progressive debate will not change how the ballot is signed.

Framework: The framework is the weighing mechanism the debate functions through. This means I will most likely not vote on substance arguments on face if they don't have a framework that makes them matter (i.e a genocide impact in round isn't going to be a voter if there isn't some kind of framework telling me why it actually matters.) Weigh your arguments. This includes pre-fiat args.

Kritiks: I love K's and K debates, if the debater running them understands how it actually functions. There is nothing that frustrates me more than listening to someone try to explain kritikal literature for 45 minutes when they have no idea what they are talking about. If you plan to run a K in front of me, know the premise of the argument, and how it functions in round. The better the understanding, the more likely I will be to buy the K, as well as the higher your speaks will be.

T/Theory: I am not the most experienced individual when it comes to understanding Theory and T. I know how the arguments function and I am capable of judging a T and theory debate, but my experience and knowledge of both are not impressive. I have a fairly high threshold to vote on Theory, and a slightly lower threshold for T. I am more inclined to reject the arg, not the debater. If you are running Theory as a strategical advantage and not to actually check abuse, there is a very low chance I will vote on it, and will be reflective of your speaks.

Speed: I am okay with most speed and usually can keep up, but if not I will call clear. If you refuse to slow down or clear up, ill start docking speaker points.

Performance: I maintain a high threshold for arguments across these lines. If you cant explain a cohesive voting story that actually makes sense, I probably wont vote on it. Still might get you some killer speaks if it entertains me though.

Extensions: I have a low threshold for extensions.

=The Little Things:=
 * Don't be an asshole.
 * Debate is a competition, but have manners.
 * We're in a classroom, not an auditorium. Adjust your voice accordingly.
 * I am fine with flex prep.
 * You have a one minute grace period for swapping evidence or other tech problems before I start prep. Come prepared.
 * I do not want to time you, nor do I want to give hand signals. Bring a timer.
 * If you have a consequential or util framework, please for the love of god have some form of impact calc.
 * Speaks are based on the quality of the arg AND the quality of the speaker.
 * Modern Hip-Hop references that amuse me get you an extra speaker point.