Dada,+Tinuola

I did LD for five years for Eastside Catholic in Sammamish, Washington and was 16th place at Nationals my junior year and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I currently attend Stanford University. 1. Please slow down for: author names, plan texts, theory/T interps, and anything that you think it is v important for me know have down. Also, start a lot slower than your max speed and then work your way up so I can get used to the sound of your voice. 2. I will yell clear/slow as many time as necessary but every time that I have to after the third time I yell clear i will dock your speaks by .1. I will yell louder as many times as necessary. 3. I know that you're not going to do those first two things but imma just say this: I kind of suck at flowing (I don't feel bad about this because tbh everyone sucks at flowing) so if you make it hard for me it will end badly for you 💁 #sorryboutit 4. Do what you do best - don't do something because you think I will like it - because I probably won't if you do it poorly 5. I have a very expressive face so pay attention. I won't vote on something I don't understand - if I look confused then you need to either need to keep explaining or go for something else. 6. If you are a higher-level debater and you are debating a younger/less experienced debater it is SO unnecessary for you to be mean/destroy them. You will be rewarded for being kind/helping that person learn from the experience. 7. I haven't experienced this yet as a judge but I won't arguments that are just false. 8. I cannot express to you how painfully boring and annoying it is to watch debaters figure out flashing/emailing/airdropping their cases to each other. So, a. figure it out before the round starts, and b. if it takes more than five minutes, too bad, so sad: no flashing for you (These are not things that I will default not vote on but I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not at least somewhat biased against these arguments - These are also (loosely) ordered based on how much I dislike them (#1 is the most disliked)) 1. silly/ridiculous positions (use your best judgement for what this means but if you were giggling with your teammates when writing it, that's a bad sign) 2. hidden spikes 3. aprioris 4. skepticism 5. monism 6. contingent standards 7. AFC (or any similar variation like Affirmative role of the ballot choice, AEC, etc.) 8. descriptive standards 1. I'm going to be real witchu - I wasn't good at LARP as a debater and probably not that great as a judge either. My suggestion to you is the same as above: be SLOW and CLEAR when something is important, especially with evidence comparisons and weighing. 2. On that note: Weigh. I know you'll all be like "of course I'll WEIGH" but you won't. And then I'll be sad. But you'll more even more sad because you'll lose. 1. I am way more comfortable with critical theory than I am with analytic or political philosophy (I know like basics because, ya know, I did debate) but I probably need a little bit more hand holding with more complex analytic phil 2. Make comparative arguments 3. Absent any evaluative mechanism I will default util (although you are already in a real bad place if I am defaulting at the framework,etc.) 1. I think tricky **strategies** are cool, but I am very unpersuaded by a 1/2 sentence blips and I am unlikely to vote on unwarranted spikes. Basically, developing and executing a clever plan is way more impressive than being able to hide and extend unwarranted claims. 1. I assume: a. drop the arg on both theory and t b. RVIs granted only if you have offense on the theory debate for both reasonability and competing interps c. Competing interps d. Theory voter > ROB/ROJ 2. warrant you arguments - particularly in theory debates people just make claims/use jargon and assume that I a. know what that means and b. will just believe you. Even if I probably know the former I definitely won't do the latter. 3. I actually like clever/strategically run theory. The only caveat is that I think I quite possibly suck at more complex debates so slow it down a little and slightly over explain. 1. This was probably my favorite type of argument when I was a debater so I'm very comfortable evaluating (most) Ks - I will say that I know a LOT more about identity based arguments than continental philosophy (so, Heidegger, Nietzsche and friends probably need to be explained to me a little bit more) 2. I think K affs have to have SOME (if tenuous) link to the topic – if that means a metaphor that’s fine, but saying “screw the topic” is probably not ideal- This doesn't mean you have to have a topical aff, but I am sympathetic to T claims, especially if a topical version of the Aff exists. 3. Impact turning oppression is never a good idea. Using skep as an answer to identity politics - also no bueno. 4. K debate is awesome but it's super boring if you just recycle generic arguments. That doesn't mean you can't read like a Cap K or something - but if you have a unique twist I'll be a lot happier. 5. Trigger warnings are also awesome so if you're running a narrative or something just keep that in mind. (This doesn't mean that I'll automatically drop you if you don't have trigger warnings but I'll be a. happier if you do and b. open to hearing arguments about why I SHOULD drop you if you don't) 1. I reward speaks based on quality of arguments, technical proficiency, sassiness, and overall strategy. The caveat for sassiness is that you can be sassy/perceptually dominant without being mean/rude. 2. I will increase your speaks by .5 if you bring me food or coffee
 * GENERAL THINGS **
 * THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE**
 * LARP **
 * FRAMEWORK **
 * TRICKS **
 * THEORY **
 * KRITIKS **
 * SPEAKS **

This is pretty much everything I could think of, but this probably isn't entirely exhaustive of everything I think in debate, if you have particular questions just FB message me or ask me before the round.