Thew,+Brad

Big ideas:
 * 1) I don’t judge all that often anymore. I’m almost always in tab, but when I do, it’s usually at a circuit tournament.
 * 2) I hate games. Stop it. I believe in positions that make sense and have well linked arguments. Theory shouldn’t be a strategy to win, a two word NIB doesn’t mean you win, and so on.
 * 3) I’m open to many types of arguments. That doesn’t mean you should run weak arguments, or run advanced arguments poorly and just expect me to deal with it. I’d rather see a good value/criterion round than a round with noncompetitive/nonsensical/insignificant plans, or a badly shelled CP/DA, or a K with no real alt, or skep in general, or theory that’s meant to be distracting more than responsive, or anything like that any day. If you’re going to run anything, do your best to do it well.
 * 4) I’m also probably not the best person to run performative or narrative positions in front of- while I’m intrigued, these really aren’t the sort of arguments I’m experienced with. Fair warning.
 * 5) I like philosophy. I enjoy frameworks that revolve around the ethical implications of a resolution. I enjoy thinking about a topic, and considering it from different angles. When I consider a resolution myself, my own analyses usually begin at the deontological level.

I’ve coached LD for thirteen years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I have opinions about new trends, and I’m deeply concerned about the exclusivity of camp arguments and financial “paywalls” surrounding tricks in current circuit/progressive debate. I’m also getting sick of new arguments coming out of camps for no apparent reason. In the round, I rely on my flow and my best understanding of what transpired. **Make clear extensions as a result**. I like real world debates with logical argumentation.

Framework- I grew up and debated with a more traditional framework (I graduated in 2005 and was a mediocre debater). As a result, I will be most comfortable in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. I can deal with nontraditional frameworks as long as they make sense. I don’t think that plans are inherently necessary, but I think they work. I do not believe that there is an obligation to run one, to be clear. I don’t really care about meta-ethics and meta-meta-whatevers, nor do I want to hear anything set in a simulation. I probably won’t vote on a three word spike, and I really dislike skep rounds. In short, I’m growing tired of efforts to pull debate even further from case debate. I believe that debate can be a part of an effort to engage social problems, but I don’t think that this should truncate topic discussion.

Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle **moderate** speed. I will say slow/clear once or twice if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I don’t generally go below 27, unless there is rudeness. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far**. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. I’m doing the best I can to evaluate the round with what I have seen and understand. Sometimes rounds are close, and I have to make a decision. You may not agree with the end result, but that’s the way it goes.** Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently.

Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. __I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win.__

Kritiks- I’m becoming a fan of critical positions in LD. However, I don’t like them used for ridiculous reasons. Things to know: I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. Whatever you are running, you should make sure it is relevant to the topic and ensure that it has an actual alt that is somehow realistic in our society. In my opinion, anarchic or society ending positions don't really fit that bill. If you are running something discursive, don’t run it frivolously, and don't do it just for a win.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will impact speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn't mention something here, ask me about it, or just assume I have no clue.