Caruthers,+Brennan


 * Pre-Harvard 2016 Update:** I appreciate debaters who view each round as an opportunity to learn and improve. As such, I'll coach/give advice for free to whomever asks. My paradigm's largely the same in that I'll vote for anything with a warrant. However, I can't keep up with speed anymore so **please** slow down. Make me laugh (or at least try) and I'll give you high speaks.


 * Pre-Lexington 2015 Update:** Everything below still holds true. I haven't judged in over a year, so please go a bit slower.


 * Post-Bronx 2013 Update:** I will not vote on arguments that tell me to vote down your opponent for being racist, sexist, etc. if the link comes from anything other than an explicit racist or sexist remark. That being said, I'm still fine with prefiat justifications for a standard or to reject certain arguments.


 * Pre-Yale 2013 Update:** I have had zero interaction with the topic. - I haven't flowed since April so be gentle. - Make the round fun and entertaining and I'll give you a 30. I will give you all of the 30s.

I debated mostly just the 2012-2013 season, and was an independent debater for the majority of my career. I'm going to Northeastern so I'll be judging mostly in the Northeast. I was a California debater. I'll put the important stuff at the top since I know how much it sucks to do prefs.

- CX is binding and also very interesting, use it effectively. - Quality evidence comparison will impress me. - Please come to the round pre-flowed. - Debate's fun. If you make me laugh or look like you're having a blast It'll make me happy and my happiness will reflect on your speaker points. <3 - I prefer debates about the topic or about philosophy. I won't be as happy evaluating a round that is 100% theory, presumption, or some manifestation of the such. Like I said earlier though, my happiness doesn't affect how I evaluate the round. Have fun! Here's a video for your time: media type="youtube" key="dSHguGwkY3s" width="560" height="315"
 * Paradigm:** I'll vote for anything so long as it's warranted and explained coherently. A few things may have a higher threshold for this (see below). My ballot story will be as follows every time: Which framework is won, and who won the most offense back to that framework. The framework may be substantive, critical, theoretical, or micropolitical (or whatever else is around). Framework, then offense. That's it.
 * Speaks:** You'll get a 28.5 or higher if I think you deserve to clear at the tournament we're at. Unless you do something absurdly offensive or unintelligent in round you'll stay above a 25. Speed: I sucked at flowing but it's easier to do with a computer (so I hear), so go as fast as you want. I'll call clear if you're unclear, and I'll call slow if you're going too fast. It won't affect your speaks (since it's probably me just sucking at flowing), but if you continue to be unclear or too fast then it will affect your speaks, and probably my decision as well.
 * Theory, Metatheory, etc.:** Go for it. I don't default to anything, so tell me how to evaluate the arguments. Theory doesn't have to be in the typical A,B,C,D format, but I'm open to arguments as to why it has to be. I'll be more impressed with debaters who win the round without necessarily winning theory (i.e. not running theory, reading it as drop the argument, responding to theory with a couple "I Meets" instead of a counter-interp and an RVI).
 * RVIs:** I'm sympathetic towards the RVI, but I won't intervene for one. I'm open to arguments for and against why offensive counter-interps are voting issues in themselves.
 * Kritiks/Critical Arguments:** I'll vote off of them. Be exceptionally clear and summarize each card after you read it. If I don't understand it I won't evaluate it.
 * Presumption/Permissibility/Triggers:** Go for it. I'm inclined to believe there's a risk of offense for a framework being true, but if you make arguments as to why I should look to presumption, and those arguments are dropped or being won by you, then sure.
 * Miscellaneous:**