Reed,+Logan

Hello! If your reading this you are probably about to debate in front of me. I hope the round goes well for all involved!

Tl;dr Do good and win arguments. Read what you want, if it has a //warrant// **and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into**. And don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/shit speaks. Please go fast and signpost, but be clear and SLOW DOWN AT TAGS/INTERPS/PLANS

Shortcut 1-K/Preformance 2- Framework/LAARP 3-Theory/Tricks

Basic info-
 * 3 years high school debate, c/o 17 North Crowley High School. NYU c/o 2021. Currently doing policy debate for NYU.
 * Debated in TFA, UIL, and TOC circuits in LD and CX, did pretty well and got a few bids.
 * This means that i have experience with pretty much any style of debate you do. I can recognize a good lay debate as well as good circuit debate, and I'll reward you w/speaks for doing well at what you are good at. I'll give a good tradish debater better speaks than a bad k debater if they make good strategic decisions.
 * She/they pronouns.
 * I will be really annoyed with you if you don't respect pronouns, be it mine or others.
 * Conflicts: North Crowley, Flowermound SD, Cypress Bay IM, Cy Fair KA, Corona del sol ZE, Marcus KL


 * __Full paradigm-LD:__**

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Logan&search_last=Reed
 * __Judging history:__**

__**Old/Current stuff I read**__

LD high school stuff- https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/North+Crowley/ Stuff I'm reading now- https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/NYU/

__**Email**__ loganreed101@att.net

General stuff- I view debate as a really important and educational activity. As such you need to know that I am going to be sensitive to discourse, practices, and arguments that are intended to belittle, intimidate, harass, or in some other way make this an unsafe space for anyone involved. This means that intentional racism, homophobia, sexism, or related bigotry will effect your speaks and potentially the outcome of the round. If you want to argue trans people have a mental disorder, for example, strike me. I will probably be expressive while judging, if i look confused maybe slow down a little. Now for actual, like, arguing-
 * Evidence ethics are relevant and I may vote against you if you completely blatantly and intentionally misrepresent evidence, even if your opponent doesn't call you on it. I do call for evidence.**
 * Please have content warnings for things that could be triggering or harmful.**

Defaults-
//These are literally just defaults-all can be changed with a claim and a warrant. If there's a claim without a warrant, or two competing claims without warrants, I am likely to go to these defaults. please don't make me use these- make arguments// Epistemic modesty is false Oppression is bad, util is true No RVIs Reasonability is true (i default to demonstrated abuse) Competing worlds is how the debate should be evaluated (this one i feel more strongly about than the rest) Presume neg

Overview-
I need you to have a framing mechanism and win offense back into it to win my ballot. I need some kind of framework/weighing/role of the ballot/voter/burden. Don't care which as long as it has a __//**warrant**//__. Please have an impact that actually links to a winning framework. Please also **weigh** these impacts, or you may be really mad when I vote for your opponents seemingly minor impact because they did some badass weighing. (I like counter intuitive but well warranted weighing)
 * Framing is important. Please tell me how to evaluate the round!!!**
 * BUT impacts are also important! I can't vote for you if you just win framework!**
 * This applies to more than just case debate- regardless of if you are reading a K, theory, or a NIB, I need a reason why it matters. Please weigh theory standards and K impacts.**

Specific stuff-
General- I think that the judge is a mediator with a responsibility to encourage good educational norms, so I try to be tab in general and generally won't intervene. Speed is fine, I will clear as many times as I have to. If i clear you it may not be an issue of clarity but of speed- I'll assume you'd rather me clear you and be able to flow rather than not clear you and be lost and unable to vote on what you just said. i wont deduct points for a terrible speaking voice, as long as i can hear you. **Slow down on tags and even more on texts/interps and analytic dumps. If i don't catch the warrant i may not be able to vote for the argument.** I have a low threshold for extensions in the AR. I expect that the NR extends full claim and warrant, however. Full explanations of arguments and warrants that you want to win on is good. I am very opposed to new arguments late in the debate round, especially complex interaction between things like voters, so explain how your arguments interact when you read them.
 * Also, please signpost well.**
 * I****'ll vote for non topical affs if justified and won. I read these a lot.**
 * F**lashing is good and you need to do it if talking fast. I also will ask to see evidence and would like to be included in email chains/flashes.

LAARP- I like innovative strategies and well worded plan texts. Plans+ counteplans are abusive, i would prefer for you not to run them, or at least have good theoretical justifications for why you are. I also love creative perms, but make sure to give a net benefit. Blurting out 'perm do both' and moving on isn't sufficient. Also totally okay with args like death good (still not ok with oppression good)

K- K debate can be great debate. I read lots of Ks and understand most literature at least some. that said, if your reading a nuanced position please explain that a lot, especially by contextualizing the alt. Its good to know how the alt functions, what it solves for, ect. Please also have specific links and explain exactly what the aff does that links. Please understand what you are reading and don't just read a k because I'm the judge. I wont intervene against white people reading Wilderson or str8 ppl reading queer theory (tho these are probably bad and feel free reading reasons these are bad).

Theory/T- I may not love your interp, but I'll vote on it if won. I think disclosure is good and I'll vote on disclosure if won. I really want to see you interact your shell with the K and framework, or visa versa. **IF there's no interaction on the framing level, i will default to whatever framing makes the most agent specific claim to the judge.** And again please do some weighing on theory. If you don't weigh or the weighing is unclear making a decision is basically impossible. I'm really not biased towards non-t affs despite reading them a lot and ill vote on T if won.

Tricks/skep/sketch- like FW tricks, mild distaste for offense theory spikes and will be sympathetic to arguments against them. If you read a blippy spike block I will be slightly annoyed especially if I couldn't flow it. Either slow down or adapt your strategy- because i wont vote on spikes i didn't get the claim and warrens of the first time you said it. i will also have a very low threshold for substantive responses to spikes-refuting a mass of spikes with weighing is a lot more impressive than a spikes bad K, and I will be more likely to buy that strat, especially because most spikes are pretty badly warranted. If you have to read these types of arguments, pease justify them theoretically. But if done well its totally possible to win my ballot while killing debate. The caveat is moral skep- i kinda hate it. I can vote on it, if you clearly win it, but you will lose speaks (this does not apply to other types of skep like linguistic)

Speaker points- I like giving higher points. I give these based on how good you were at debating, especially strategy, and if you do things i like (unique cases, good weighing, cool FW, ect), which I know is totally arbitrary but so are speaker points in the first place. If I am frustrated by you making the round way too hard to resolve because you didn't make framework or weighing arguments then I will lower speaks.

I will give slightly higher points (probably .25-. 5) to debaters who dress causally at the tournament to encourage this norm, and offset the reduction in points other judges may give (especially true at locals). I will try to average speaks at 28.5 based on the pool. update 9/29/17:I will boost speaks if you provide a dank Foucault meme that I've never seen before.

Things I won't vote on no/evaluate matter what- The 'resolved' a-priori The "SCUM" argument Any argument that says I should be physically or directly violent against another debater That I should evaluate the round or a flow before the end of the debate

__**CX**__ I have some experience with CX at the high school and college level. That said, I likely have less than your average coach/college student, and I won't know the topic/norms as well as you because I don't coach high school policy. This probably means just slow down a little and spend more time explaining things (especially acronyms) than you normally would. I should know any debate jargon you use. See my LD paradigm for a general idea of me and debate Non-T affs are cool. K debate is cool. Theory debates are often too blippy- flesh out warrants if you want be to flow. Also, I don't assume who wins the best extinction impact auto wins, I would like a lot of impact framing. I'm probably more willing to buy that impact framing can completely exclude your opponants impacts than most judges. I'll hold CX debaters to a higher threshold with extensions and explanations.

__**PF**__ When i judge, i take a pedagogical stance against deciding a winner based on persuasion or appearance. I evaluate arguments and only that. If you want to know why, feel free to ask.

I am okay with speed, off case arguments, Ks, dense frameworks, ect, and i would honestly rather see these arguments than not. Appeals to the 'rules of PF' are not persuasive to me, however, a warranted theory argument about the unique constraints on PF may be. If you are going to say something is abusive, have a rigorously warranted reason why it is, because saying 'this isn't what pf is' is not going to be evaluated. Be polite but do not let the other team waste your crossfire time or otherwise silence you.

See my LD paradigm for a general idea of me and debate

__**Extempt**__ I look for solid analysis first, then I look to how supported this analysis is by evidence you give, then I will consider general presentation and how well you did the basics (ie solid voice level and pronunciation). I won't factor in physical appearance nor body language into my decision at all-wear what you want.