Green,+Perry

I debated for 4 years for Walt Whitman on the national and local circuit, and currently coach for Scarsdale.

>
 * Speed: If you are clear, loud, and well organized, then I should be able to flow most speed (though probably not the very fastest). Don't forget that last point though: having spikes in unrelated places, not numbering your arguments, not making the link story explicit, etc. will come at a direct cost to how fast you can go. Conversely, if you explain your arguments well and spend more time developing each point, then it will be easier for me to flow at higher speeds. I will call clear if I can't understand you, but if you are consistently unclear don't be surprised when your speaker-points are trashed. You should slow down for author names, numbering, and other case structure.
 * Theory: I am receptive to arguments about the evaluation or implication of theory (RVIs, thresholds of reasonability, drop argument not debater, only unfair if no better way to run the argument, etc.) and think that, if well warranted, these can be effective ways to force debates into the most underdeveloped (both in shells and in the community) aspects of theory. Similarly, I think that the degree to which these issues are addressed in the original shells is usually insufficient, and so if you are running theory in front of me you should make an effort to develop them more fully. I strongly prefer that you structure theory in the traditional (Interpretation/Violation/Standards/Voter) way.
 * Please don’t just read a long list of short cards without explanation of how they interact, what independent link stories there are, etc. I think that this level of analysis is part of an argument, and will consider new analysis of this sort to be, well, new. The same is true when reading evidence/making arguments more generally against cases: interaction and functionality should be in the first speech as much as possible (though NR/2AR weighing is always better than nothing).
 * Speaks: The easiest way to improve your speaker points when I’m judging is to run interesting, unique, and well-developed positions. Even small twists on otherwise stock positions are likely to make me happy. I will vote on permissibility triggers, multiple necessary but insufficient burdens, dumb theory interps, etc. if they are won, but they make me feel: [[image:http://i.imgur.com/mMWl0.gif width="220" height="147"]]

If you have any specific questions about my judging views, feel free to find me and ask me about it before/between rounds.