Kelinsky,+Edward

Hey, I just judged you And this is crazy, But you triggered skep, L-20, maybe?

Experience: 3 years local and national circuit debate at Loyola High School.

Conflicts: Loyola High and Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy.

This paradigm just shows my preferences/biases on debate: I will only vote on the arguments that are made (you’d be surprised at how often this distinction needs to be made). In the interest of your speaks, though, consider my preferences. Weighing is key.

Although I am totally fine with you using skepticism to justify a framework (e.g. a "meta-ethic" for legalism), I hate watching rounds with giant dumps of hidden triggers. So, if triggering permissibility is your a-strat, your speaks will suffer. And please number your spikes if you plan on extending them. __ It’s your fault if I can’t flow your arguments. __

Theory – I will default competing interps and that theory is not an RVI unless explicitly told otherwise. I have a hard time flowing messy theory debates with a lot of analytic links, so slow down – especially when weighing standards. I give the AC leniency on answering theory, and presume that defense is mitigation unless explicitly phrased as terminal when the argument is made. Once again, be clear about how it controls the internal link, outweighs, etc. I think OCI’s and RVI’s are dumb (you’re better off meeting the interp and running a new shell), but I will not intervene to ignore them.

Weighing – If no weighing analysis is done, I default to strength of link (but I would really prefer not to). A cold conceded argument that is extended automatically outweighs an argument with just defense. As with answers to theory, your defense needs to be terminal when it is made; if it is not, then it is just mitigation. __Clear weighing and functioning are probably the best ways to win my ballot.__

Extensions – I don't need a warrant extended to qualify as an extension. Extending the tag is sufficient, especially if an argument is conceded. I prefer that extensions be used as take-outs of other arguments as opposed to line-by-line cross-applications on separate parts of the flow.

Kritiks – I will have a hard time voting on a K unless its link story is abundantly clear to me. Absent explicit links to a framework, I will not vote on it.

Speaks – I like people to read my paradigm and will try to give ways to enhance speaks if asked how before the round. That being said, I start at a 27 and go up or down from there. As a general rule, making the round entertaining/short is always a good strategy.

Misc. – T is fine. I’m not the greatest at flowing, so the more complicated/important your arguments are, the more you should slow down and explain. You probably shouldn’t run your micropol arguments or performances in front of me, though I will vote for them if they are won. Please have all of your files ready to go if you read off a laptop, because delaying the round unnecessarily is annoying.

I presume aff unless told otherwise. Ask specific questions. Don’t be a dick.