Giller,+McKay

I debated in LD for Loyola for 4 years. I qualified to the TOC twice, and cleared my senior year.

__**SHORT VERSION**__

I’ll evaluate all arguments. I don’t want to intervene, but I will if I have to. To stop me from intervening, do weighing. Also, be clear both when you speak and when you are telling me you won. Overviews are a plus for speaks. I am lenient on extensions on conceded args in the 1AR, but if an arg isn't conceded, extend it well.

__**FULL VERSION**__

**Background**
I was more of a LARPer when I debated and ran theory, so I’m more used to those kinds of strategies than complex frameworks or kritiks. That’s not to say I won’t evaluate those arguments, but if you don’t explain your frameworks or k’s well, I might not understand it and I can’t really vote on something I don’t understand in the round. Also, if there is no offense in the round and no one makes presumption arguments, I’ll presume neg since that’s the squo (unless for some reason there’s a resolution where the aff is the squo). I think that there is practically no scenario in which I would have to presume since there is pretty much always a risk of offense. If I have to presume, I will most likely lower your speaks.

**Theory/T**
If no other arguments are made in the round, I will default to competing interpretations and drop the debater. That’s not to say I won’t listen to arguments to the contrary, rather that if there are no arguments either way, those are the views to which I will default. I personally believe that while RVIs are false, they are necessary to prevent abusive NC strategies where the neg reads a bunch of no-risk shells. I don’t have a high threshold for abuse, so most frivolous shells are fine (emphasis on the most). I think arguments about why fairness isn’t a voter are obviously false and some of the worst arguments in debate, however if they are conceded then I will reject a fairness voter. That also means that I have an incredibly low threshold for responses to fairness isn’t a voter arguments, so don’t drop them.

I think T is underutilized in LD, and often incorrectly utilized. I like T debates because they are more nuanced than theory and usually much more interesting. However, bad T debates are pretty unfortunate to watch, so if you’re unsure how to debate T, don’t start a T debate just because I said I liked it.

Util is trutil

**Frameworks**
When I debated, I didn’t really understand heavy and dense philosophical frameworks, and I don’t think that much has changed. However, I will evaluate them and, if you explain them clearly enough, will vote on them. If you plan on only having substantive debate, be sure to do lots and lots of explicit weighing and meta-weighing (i.e. weighing between the different weighing metrics). I read theoretical justifications for frameworks many a time, and also read kritikal framework arguments every now and then.

**Kritiks**
I was not a very kritikal debater when I debated, and dense Ks are still pretty foreign to me. If you want to read your K, you can, but don’t get mad at me if after the round you think I made the wrong decision because you didn’t explain your K well enough. I will evaluate Ks, but I am no where near the best one to do so.

**Tricks**
I was also not much of a tricky debater when I debated. I understand tricks and I think they can be strategic, but don’t expect me to give you a 30 if you extend your 17th spike as an a priori or something. Things like skep are fine as long as you aren’t offensive about it (as in morally reprehensible). However, there are some spikes I believe are false, though I’ll listen to them and if they’re won, vote on them. That means I’d have a very low threshold for responses to those spikes though. For example, give the aff an RVI on I-meets, all neg interps are counter-interps, CX checks (taken to the extreme where the neg has to show you the interp in CX), etc. I will most likely lower your speaks if you have like 12 spikes and some of them are like only aff RVI but neg interps are counter-interps and neg must line-by-line the aff or whatever. You know when it hits the point of being ridiculous.

I will give you an extra half a speaker point if you say, in your overview of your final speech, "Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt."

**Speaks**
I believe that speaks are a way to reward strategic decision making, as well as a way to reflect the quality of the debate more correctly than just a win or loss. If you say things that are morally reprehensible, i.e. 9-11 was great or we should all commit suicide or the Holocaust was ok or something, I will give you somewhere between a 0 and a 3.5. If you are rude to your opponent or to me, I will also drop your speaks. I tend to average around a 28.2-28.5, but will reward good strategic choices well. Also, slow down for things like plan texts, theory interps, counter plan texts, alt texts, roles of the ballot, etc. If you’re unclear and I tell you to be clear but you don’t listen, you’ll lose speaks. I’ll lower your speaks if you read too much theory, or not enough theory (i.e. if they are really abusive and you don’t call them out on it).

Finally, to quote my former debate coach and forever life coach: “Good luck! Have fun!” –John Scoggin