Lawera,+Stan

I am a freshman at UT Austin. Competed in LD for three years with Clements High School, qualifying for state once. I have been out of debate for about a year now so I’m going to be rusty, this mostly means I will need you to go a bit slower.

Judging Philosophy:
 * I am fundamentally a judge with a traditional preference. This means I would like to see a strong framework debate supporting a set of logical arguments that connect to the standard.
 * I’m ok with plans, CPs, and DAs. I understand, but am not a fan of K’s. If you must run a K it must be clear, explained, and fully linked.
 * Theory- I am OK with and will vote on theory if abuse is present in the round. Please don’t run theory for purely strategic purposes or just to run theory. I will default to reject the argument unless you justify otherwise.
 * I naturally favor empirical arguments especially in policymaking, but please don’t just try to drown your opponent in evidence.

Delivery:
 * I’m not going to require that you make eye-contact and all that. However, if you mumble through your speech or fly through it without regard for intonation or an attempt at eloquence it will be reflected in your speaks. I don’t want to be a stickler on this but it’s still a speaking activity.
 * Speed- I’ve never been great with speed so take note of that and be sure to slow down for taglines and authors. Will probably comfortably flow a 4-6 on speed, I would stick with that range as I’m just getting back to debate. I will only call clear if I cannot keep up or understand.

Miscellaneous:
 * CX is binding
 * Don’t presume I know everything, and please extend your arguments
 * I would like to see a clear explanation of arguments, clash, and weighing arguments in reference to the standard. Tell me why you’re winning the round.