Yoakum,+Alex

I debated for 5 years, mostly on the national circuit. Graduated Grapevine HS in 2015.

UPDATE after Emory 2016: The jury was out for a bit, but I have decided to no longer vote on disclosure theory. Ask before round if you want your opponent to disclose. If they aren't answering, hell, I'll help you find them if they are mutuals. I honestly do not think in-round theory debates are ultimately the way to shift LD culture to a norm of disclosure, and I hate evaluating these debates. They get super shady (and I love being shady) but I think it goes beyond my jurisdiction as a judge to sanction someone for not disclosing. Even though I think disclosure is gucci (since I disclosed as a debater my senior year) I don't want to evaluate these debates anymore. Also, some coaches get really aggressive on this issue and I just don't want to deal with two whiney people about lack of disclosure. Just don't pref me if your A strat is disclosure theory.

- I won't vote on disclosure theory (read passive aggressive tangent above :) ) - I may like K debate more, but please, if you are far better at defending your spiked out aff go ahead and read it. I will happily judge any round that is put before me (because I am getting paid to do it usually) - I cry, because framework (as in, ethical theory sense) is dead and I just love it when people actually read a cohesive ethical theory (I am sorry, Winter and Leighton is not a cohesive ethical theory), but if you are good at the framework pls do it. If you really impress me, then I might award higher speaks. But if Winter and Leighton is your thing, idc I'll still evaluate it. - I try not to have any presumptions on theory debate, but, unless articulated, I will default reasonability and drop the arg on most issues (but if the theory shell is something where drop the arg blatantly doesn't make sense then drop the debater it is) - Non-topical K's are cool, they make db8 gr8
 * __TL;DR (with some new, short tangents)__**

__**Kritiks:**__ I love Ks, and I have some decent background in the literature. However, I would not make the assumption that I know absolutely everything about critical theory. Here are some recommendations to get my ballot if you run a K: 1. Make sure the K links back to some framing mechanism, whether it is a post-fiat normative framework or a role of the ballot. You can't win me over on the K debate if you don't clearly impact it back to a framing mechanism. 2. Point out specific areas on the flow where your opponent links. I'm not going to do the work for you. 3. If the round devolves into a huge K debate, you must weigh. Sifting through confusing K debates where there isn't any weighing is almost as bad as a terrible theory debate.

Slow down on the tags and the alternative text in Ks, tis very helpful.

__**Framework**__ I've got decent background in philosophy homes, so you do you. Not much to really add here other than make good comparative arguments.

__**Theory**__ To be honest fam, a 45 minute long theory debate bores the hell out of me, but if you must engage theory (because your fairness or education has been stolen for some obscure reason) then I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability. If there isn't any argument made, I probably default to reasonability over competing interpretations. Just make the 10 second arg fam and I'll be using competing interpretations. I don't presume theory/T or K first, make it easy for me as a judge and win some args why one or the other comes first. Despite my general distaste towards "frivolous theory," I don't really care if you run it. Be thyself. I have heard some ridiculous af theory shells before, and I will have no qualms voting for it if it is clearly won. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO SOME WEIGHING. THEORY DEBATES WITHOUT WEIGHING MAKES ME CRY EVERY TIEM. (Insert dank meme here).

__**Tricky Hobbits**__ Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests: 1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths). 2. Slow down a little for theory spikes. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section. 3. If you extend an a priori, lean more towards the side of over explanation rather than under explanation. I have a high standard for extensions, so I need to understand a) why the a priori means you affirm/negate b)the claim, warrant, impact of the arg

__**Speaks**__ Alright, I actually have no idea what to say here. how 2 get gr8 speaks from xanderyoaks: Make good args? Make good strategic choices? Also, I have a weak spot for humor. If you can make me laugh, I will probably give you better speaks.. But this does not meant that if you have no sense of humor to try so hard that you make everyone in the room cringe.