Turner,+Davis

I HATE SPREADING AND I DON'T FLOW

Just kidding. I did national circuit LD debate for 3 years with Loyola High School. Though I'm not exactly the greatest flow judge you can get, I'm fine with basically everything. Just make sure to slow down a bit on tags/author names since this is my first year judging and since I don't flow spreading as often as I did in high school, obviously.

THEORY: I'm fine with theory, and I'll default to competing interps. However, I'm willing to listen to other stuff, even RVI's (IF IT'S WELL WARRANTED - usually they're just blips).

PHILOSOPHY: I really like philosophy, so I'm fine with metaethics and some critical stuff among other things. I looove Nietzsche, but getting into stuff like phenomenological literature (Heidegger and his buddies) or Deleuze, to name a few, will require you to very clearly explain what the hell they're saying when they overuse inflated jargon just to superficially increase their legitimacy and thus make more money. *** intentional rambling ahead, feel free to skip/skim*** For example, some philosophers believe that Heidegger just rushed the second part of Being and Time with lots of unecessarily jargon-packed sentences (more so than the first part, which is considerably clearer as far as Heidegger's dense writing goes) just to make his book bigger and seemingly more complex than it already was. The running joke was that "not even Heidegger knows what the second part to Being and Time means"; ironically, it proved to work for him because he ended up getting Husserl's prestigious seat after the man retired from his professorship. But I digress. Just note that Continental philosophy tends to be a little iffy sometimes...so be careful and clear. But I'd love to hear anything with Nietzsche/Kierkegaard (though I'm assuming that won't be run by most teams) :) - just a sidenote (you don't have to read this - it has nothing to do with my paradigm), it might be cool to weave in a unique ethical theory to a voter in a t/theory shell, rather than just the usual "education/fairness" stuff - ie what does it mean to be fair/should we be fair. You could even cross-app something from the framework, if that argument goes dropped/you're winning it (if you're aff, though aff theory = odd sometimes considering the time constraint in the 1ar). Though I definitely see how that could be non-strategic in some instances.

SPEAKER POINTS: I will give higher speaker points if you explicitly signpost, structure your arguments and refutations, separate the round into layers, crystallize, etc.; in other words, be organized. I'll give the highest speaker points to people who can do this while at the same time either weave in really creative arguments/strategies and/or just flat out dominate the round on the flow.

One thing I want to point out: Being aggressive and sarcastic in CX is perfectly fine (I even endorse it), but if you act like a total jerk in round like certain debaters I've seen in the past (not naming any here...), I will knock off speaker points EVEN THOUGH IT WON'T AFFECT MY DECISION ON THE BALLOT (since I try to be objective). I don't care if anyone thinks this is way too subjective and/or a bad component of a paradigm, this is just something that has always irritated me with debate in general. To clarify, just don't go off on an ad hominem and call your opponent a childish ignoramus who should quit debate and go spend the rest of his life cutting his wrists :P. <-- don't stress about that, lol, I'll be really lenient about "knocking off speaker points for being a jerk". I just wanted to rant about that.