Speltz,+Alex

Alex Speltz Central High School (MO) '08 MIT '12 4 years policy debate experience in HS. 2 years judging.

My philosophy and preferences in a nutshell:

1) I will listen and entertain any style of argument. I try to leave any personal biases at the door and vote strictly upon what is said within the round. That said, I value logic and will apply at least a loose conceptual framework of believability to the round.

2) I typically vote as a policymaker (default), but can be convinced to vote on a different paradigm on a round-by-round basis.

3) I'm fine with speed as long as the speakers enunciate and utilize time well.

4) I vote on T but it needs to beat my somewhat-high threshold. To win T a well-reasoned and substantial argument must be made.

5) I'll vote on CP's, but they need to be introduced in the 1NC block unless it's a direct response to a 2AC add-on. As a policymaker I like to see a plan vs. cp debate and this is a very vote-able issue.

6) I also enjoy well-linked DA's. Do your impact calculus well. There are always negative effects to an affirmative plan so find them and convince me not to adopt it.

7) I will vote on K's but don't spend time reading academic theory. If you want to run a K make sure to explain it WELL. Too often debaters don't actually understand or communicate their understanding of the K properly.

8) I'm open to performance affs; I always loved debating against a rapping team when I was in debate for the entertainment factor.

9) Debate is supposed to be fun; don't be openly rude, poor sports etc. Make jokes, be sarcastic; I enjoy being entertained.

10) I require credible link arguments. Don't forget the logic structure behind your claims.

11) Evidence should be used to Support arguments; not necessarily to make it. I want to hear your thoughts on the resolution/Aff's plan. Well reasoned and logical cases go a long way, and become even better when backed up by quality evidence.

12) I will not ask to see a card after the round unless there is a dispute or the round hinges over it. Extend X evidence is not an argument by itself. For a "they don't have this card" argument to be successful it is necessary to prove that the input of an established expert is required. 13) Point out drops; I won't vote on it unless you notice it and tell me WHY it matters.

14) I don't mind tag-team CX. Just don't abuse it.

Good luck.