Tan,+Felix

I debated LD for 4 years at Clements High School. I qualified to TOC my junior year and was in finals my senior year.

Affiliations: Clements, Brentwood, Cambridge Rindge and Latin

As a debater I dabbled in a bit of everything: framework, topicality/theory, larp, K’s, etc. I’m not deeply familiar with any body of literature, but I have enough exposure to understand it and it’s debate function with clear explanations. Thus, I’ll vote on pretty much anything that doesn’t make me doubt the activity’s value (e.g. racism good). The main thing to know is that I deeply care about debating that demonstrates a solid understanding of your own arguments. This means I look for a very clear explanation for the advocacy (and it’s comparison with the opponent’s advocacy) by the 2n/2a. This, however, does not mean a high threshold for extensions themselves - shadow extending/brief efficient extensions/etc are fine with me as long as your argument is extended in some way. So your best bet is to do what you are most comfortable with.
 * Short Version:**

**How I assigns speaks:** I have found that I give speaks according to three main things: **1. Persuasion and Clarity** - I am a pretty big fan of ethos; this probably will determine what overall range I will give you. **2. Clear indication of strategy** - I like to see that you have a clear understanding of what you need to do in a round. Unorganized grand standing (albeit I was guilty of this quite often) is usually insufficient. This also means not repeating so much on an argument you have won, modularizing the debate and even ending the speech early because its clear (don't be rude about it). a. If i have to vote for arguments that depend on the opponent screwing up. Basically arguments that are awful, but the opponent made a unfortunate mistake. b. Indication that you do not understand your position well. - I understand this is inevitable so I am reasonable about this. But if you read an alternative that you clearly don't understand but plan on relying on thinks like Try or Die to win regardless of the alt, I will be less impressed with you. (Once again, personally guilty).
 * 3. Things I dock for **

c. Being nice in choosing what you read against un inexperienced debaters - I get it, debate is competitive - read what you want. But if you choose to read a frivolous spec argument and crush a novice who doesn't know how to handle spec theory, I will be unimpressed. From my point of view, all you did was recite some algorithm for a quick win. On the flip side, I will reward debaters who seem to be making a real effort to make the round more accessible.


 * Long version (in progress):**