Holt,+Mason

Experience: 4 years HS parli, 2 year HS pufo
 * General:**
 * I vote on the flow and default to net benefits.
 * I enter a round as tabula rasa as possible. If the other team does not refute a claim, then I will likely believe it and keep it across the flow.
 * Your aesthetic performance will not impact your speaks as much as your debate skills. If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue. I don't think I should have to bring this up, but I've seen enough racism and sexism in high school rounds that apparently I do. Don't be a dick.
 * I have little experience with Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate. Therefore, you won't need to spoon-feed me arguments, but some very brief explanation for LD or Policy specific topics would be immensely appreciated.
 * I enjoy policy, as you might be able to gain from my experiences. Debates solely about the value criteria might make me fall asleep, although I can see that at times they are necessary.
 * Spreading is highly discouraged. I have a particular disdain for it, and I'd take fewer heavily impacted arguments to many weak arguments any day.
 * Overall, chill out and have fun!
 * If you have any questions about college, from one debater to another, I'd be happy to help.
 * Flowing:**
 * I'll let you know if I can't understand your speed. Please slow for taglines or anything you want on my paper in detail. If I'm not flowing, you either make no sense or should move on.
 * After the time finishes, I stop writing completely.
 * Preferences:**
 * I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as there's a reason for it. Don't use procedures as time sucks.
 * I'm not okay with you excluding your opponents from the round--so slow down when they call clear and don't expect me to weigh the round on any framework that excludes the other team.
 * Please do not rely on cards to compensate for a lack of analysis. But cards can help a lot. Balance wisely.
 * I'll be weighing your impacts to determine the round. The value/value criterion debate should be a means of weighing cases in general against each other, but I will still be looking at each case, so please have distinct impacts. Not everything is dehum. Not everything is nuke war. That's okay. "Improves the economy" and "violates the constitution" are not enough for me, however.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime before the round starts.