Engel,+Connor

I debated LD for 4 years at the Harvard Westlake School. As judges we like to pretend we are completely unbiased, but unfortunately this is only true for maybe a handful of people. This means even though I will be willing to vote for any argument, (except oppression good) there will be arguments I will outline below that will be particularly difficult to win in front of me. At the end of the day, like all judges, all I really want to hear is a well warranted argument that you are comfortable reading. Regardless of what that is, I will always do my best to be as objective as possible. My pronouns are he/him. [This wiki is shamelessly plagiarized from Evan Engel].

__ **Housekeeping** __

You must share your speech docs with your opponent. Flashing, emailing, pocketbox, whatever method of sharing you prefer as long as it's more effective than looking over your shoulder or handing your opponent a stack of loose papers.

I think disclosure is very good for debate - this is not to say you cannot beat disclosure theory in front of me - it just means you will have a very hard time.

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/the email is sent.

If at any point you feel unsafe or too disturbed to continue the round please knock on the table three times or otherwise get my attention somehow. I'll stop the round and we can work it out. Debate can be incredibly stressful, but it is also an activity meant to make you uncomfortable. I'm never going to force you to keep debating if you don't want to, but I encourage you to push your own boundaries.

__ **Kritiks** __

This is my favorite type of debate, but that means I hate seeing it ruined. An NR containing a well explained and well impacted K that doesn't forget about the case is a great thing. An NR containing a K you've never read the lit for is hair pullingly frustrating. Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Don't assume I know anything about the literature you're reading, it's your responsibility to make the K as clear as possible.

__ **Non-T/Performance Affs** __

I am always down for a non-topical aff, but you need to make it very clear why I should actually vote aff absent the resolution or otherwise why your case is in the direction of the resolution. T/Framework are always strategic arguments, so you should have a reasonable defense against them.

__ **Policy** __

I think these can be some of the best debates around. I would love you if you did good evidence comparison and comparison of links to the impact rather than doing superficial weighing of impacts. I've read DA's, CP's, and Plans (basically every aff round), so I know most of the lingo and the function. If you read a plan please read specific evidence instead of general util offense for the topic. Also I'm not a fan of plans bad theory arguments. I think you should either read a T shell or a more nuanced reason why their type of plan text is bad.

__ **Topicality** __

Your interp needs evidence, standards and voting issues. A good T debate should involve a deep comparison of the world of debate each interp justifies, not just competing 6-points of the limits standard. Textuality as a voter just barely meets the standard for coherent argument, i'll vote on it, but it will be defeated easily in front of me. RVIs on T are not a thing.

__ **Theory** __

I'm not a fan of frivolous theory, i'll vote on it, but there is a low bar to answering it. If you're struggling to figure out whether a certain shell is too frivolous for me then you probably shouldn't be reading it. Please, please weigh between standards. I default to competing interps but I'm willing to listen to reasonability arguments especially against clearly frivolous or abusive theory. RVI arguments are generally pretty unconvincing, if I grant you one it's probably because I'm punishing the neg for reading a shell so ridiculous it actively angered me.

__ **Ethical Philosophy/Framework** __

I am far and away the least versed in this part of LD. I'm not unwilling to vote on anything you choose to read, just understand that if it's more complicated than ripstein or util, you will need to explain it to me like I'm a distracted 5 year old. It is very popular practice to read Ks of western philosophy, you should be ready for this.

__**Spikes/Tricks/Skep**__

I will vote for these arguments if I absolutely have to, but I greatly dislike them. Chances are if you're winning in front of me off of a blippy theory spike or an apriori it's because the rest of the debate was literally impossible to evaluate and I lowered your speaks because of it.