Cata,+Nicole

I will vote for the debater who is winning the most well warranted, heavily weighed impacts to the standard or winning an argument that comes before the standard as well as a reason why I should evaluate the argument before looking to the standards debate. The negative debater must advocate a position and disprove the resolution, as opposed to simply putting forth defensive arguments about why I shouldn’t affirm the resolution. Please extend your claim, warrant, and impact with each extension. If you want me to extend a card, make sure you clearly articulate the author’s name in your first speech. To that end, please signpost clearly; otherwise, your extensions will carry no weight in the round. Theory is only to be used in cases of very specific, egregious violations of fairness in a round. I care that arguments are true, not that they are “educational” or some other such buzzword. I will vote for critical arguments provided that the justifications for voting for them are well warranted. Remember to give me a clear decision calculus: tell me in which order I should evaluate arguments in the round. I can flow most speed so long as you are coherent. In most cases, debaters are most intelligible (and most persuasive) at a moderately paced conversational speed. Do not sacrifice clarity in the name of speed, since I will only vote on arguments that I understand the first time they are articulated.
 * General Decision Calculus **
 * Clash **
 * Extensions **
 * Theory **
 * Critical Argumentation **
 * Speed **