Tisher,+Alex

I debated for four years at Hopkins high school in Minnesota.

I am willing to listen to any argument and vote on any argument, but there are certain things that you could do that will make it much harder to win in front of me. If you run a position that is wrong (using a philosophy incorrectly, contrary to empirical fact, etc), I will vote for you if you win it, but your speaks will suffer. Similarly, offensive arguments (if not argued against) can win, but won't gain you many speaks. These arguments can and will lose with even the most basic rebuttal, but if they are dropped, I won't intervene to not vote for them.

That being said, I have a few preferences for other arguments:

I am willing to vote on theory, and will decide it based on how you tell me to in the round, but I have a very low threshold for arguments against what would generally be considered unnecessary theory. Occasionally, some unique or funny shell won't fall prey to that preference, but try to limit your usage to when there's actual abuse happening in the round.

I'm not terribly convinced by out of round impacts, but if you can win it in round, you'll win my ballot. Again, I just have a somewhat lower threshold for responses. However, if you are going to run any "oppression bad" argument, whether it's a case or a kritik or something else, I think that it should be justified. Just claiming something is a moral bad isn't sufficient for any other type of argument, and I've yet to see someone successfully argue that it should apply to oppression for some reason. But, if your opponent doesn't say anything about it, I won't drop you for it.

Don't assume I've heard whatever complicated moral theory you want to run. If you think you can explain it well enough in round for someone who has never heard it before to understand, go for it. If not, consider running something else or adding more explanation. It's not the case that I necessarily won't have heard of it, but a) I think it's extremely unfair to debaters who aren't more familiar with whatever random philosophy you've chosen and b) there certainly is a chance that I won't know it.

Speed: I debated on the circuit, so I'm pretty competent at flowing high pace rounds. That being said, if you're one of the faster debaters, you may not be able to go your full speed. I'll say "clear" or "slow" a few times, depending on what's necessary, but after that you will lose speaks if you don't change the speed or clarity of your speech. Likely, this won't be an issue.

Speaker points: If you make intelligent arguments, weigh early and often, and generally make the round easier to adjudicate, you should find yourself pleased with your speaks. On the other hand, making the round messier or making illogical arguments will result in lower points. If you can make me laugh (in the context of the round), that will likely result in higher points, too.

Feel free to ask other questions, but please make them specific rather than simply asking "is there anything you do or don't like?"