Fulkerson,+Pierce

As a General introduction, my background in LD was for years in a rural League in Central Texas so I highly value well organized flow, clash, and believe that all arguments need your basic Claim, substantiated warrant, and Impact, I however, was trained by a TOC coach my senior year so have a good understanding of most of the arguments and styles you would want to run (I will go into further detail below). I would like to call myself Tab Since this debate, of course is your debate and you should be able to do with it what you will however; I am human and so I have inherent biases and will do my best to explain them to you. Speaker Points: I really enjoy good rhetorical skill, I think it’s a generally valuable skill to be able to organize arguments and refute them while connecting with a judge personally all under a time limit. I am fine with spread but if you go at blip speed and I cannot understand it I will tell you once to slow down by putting my hand up and If I don’t understand you still or think you could more audibly spread, then will put my finger towards my ear (somewhat like how judges yell clear) after that, I will start to deduct speaks, and If I’m not able to understand you I stop typing. If you weigh correctly so that I care about what you’re saying and are clear and impactful in what you say, I will give you very high speaks. If you are polite to your opponent, I will give you high speaks. All of the converse of these will give you low speaks. I generally like to stay between 26 and 30. K: I actually really enjoy a good K, but if not well linked, I will have the propensity to buy an Affs argument that it is in fact not linked, so it’s going to be a hit or miss on me. I will accept literally an argument that an opponents red shirt creates an oppressive Aesthetic then I will listen to you as long as you explain the pre-fiat post-fiat implications of Theory: I really enjoy good theory as well but since I used it a lot I know when AC is using it to make junk for NC to deal with and junk arguments coupled with speed will in fact hurt your speaks if you slash them mid round. If you flesh them out and give good impact great. However; show reasonability and in round. Policy- I’m not great with plans, Disads, CP's or whatever other policy arguments you want to run, if you’re going to run these, really flesh out the link and explain to me what you’re doing on the flow. Lastly, Don’t cut arguments from policy back files, that just hacks me off and I’ll know. I WONT vote on Skept justifies the holocaust. I don't believe that arguments can be morally repugnant Have fun, Make jokes, this should be something you enjoy doing.