Szulanski,+Shai

I debated LD for Bronx Science for four years and graduated in 2013.

I won’t impose my argument preferences beyond the few things below; as long as I can evaluate a round reasonably comfortably I feel it is your space rather than mine.

SPEED is not an issue, just be clear. I will say "clear" twice, but that means I have already missed arguments. Leave pen time between short analytics. Theory interps, burdens/standards, and advocacy texts should be read near conversational speed given how important their phrasing is.

THEORY will be evaluated like any other argument. No-abuse claims and I-meets are terminal. I will not fill in missing parts of shells - justify what I should do if you win theory, whether an I-meet triggers an RVI, what it means to be reasonable, etc. I don’t think the interp/counterinterp distinction is meaningful; any shell with a violation has the potential to be offense.

KRITIKS will be evaluated like any other argument: link offense to a framework, provide a role of the ballot if appropriate, and make sure you can articulate warrants for your arguments. Links must be to something your opponent did/said in round. That is, I will not vote on micropolitical positions, disclosure theory, and the like.

OTHER: If a definitional/framing issue relevant to the decision calculus is left unresolved, I will err towards the less restrictive interpretation. I find it extremely unlikely that I will vote on presumption.

SPEAKS are a function of the quality of your arguments and the degree to which you interact them with your opponents'. That is, given the choice between extending a spike and comparing arguments, doing the latter will result in higher speaks. The type of arguments you make is not important - a clever theory shell will net you high speaker points as will a well-developed kritik, while the stockest argument poorly run will result in low speaks.

Feel free to ask questions before or after your round.