LaMourea,+Tessie

Background info: I debated LD for Eastside Catholic (Sammamish, WA) for four years (2007-2011) on both the national and WA circuit. I flowed by hand in high school, and I still do.

I default to competing interpretations unless you have a really good reason why I shouldn’t. In general, I vote through the winning framework at the end of the round. If your framework isn’t being pulled through, you better have a really, really good link to your opponents’ framework to win. Tell me where the brightline is, what standards are important, etc. Clarity is key. That said, I’ll vote where you tell me to vote. Don’t just assume I’ll do what you want me to do. Tell me exactly what to do with an argument.

I hate interfering in rounds, which means you better explain voters/impact calculus and why they matter because I will not do it for you. This also means extensions must be clean and have a warrant and impact (the usual stuff). I don’t have any particular favorite arguments, but if you run something, you better know what to do with it and explain to me how to adjudicate the round. If you don’t know what to do with it, I won’t know what to do with it, and it will be very unlikely that you win the round. L

TL;DR
 * Regardless of what is being run, it must be clearly articulated and weighed. If you don’t know how to run something, don’t run it. If I don’t understand an argument or why it is important, I will not vote on it.**

Other things Speed/clarity – I spewed as a debater, but I’ve been out of this for a while, so build up to it. Make sure you slow down for tags and warrants. It’s always better to be clear than fast. I will yell at you if I don’t understand you (clear, slow, etc.), but **if you don’t adjust to something I can follow, I will stop flowing.** It’s your job as the debater to convince me you’re winning. I cannot do this if I do not understand you.

Theory – I didn’t particularly like theory when I was a debater and I’d much prefer to see a substantive debate. I hold abuse arguments to a very high threshold, and if you run it, it will be held to the same standard as any argument (i.e. tell me why it matters and why its sufficient for you to win). The more clear and precise the violation, the more likely I am to vote on it.

Critical/Policy – I’ll treat critical arguments as I would any other argument. Be clear. Be specific. Tell me how it runs in round and what to do with it. Again, if you don’t know how to run it, don’t.

Speaks – I give speaks are given based on how well you communicated with me. I probably average a 27. If you’re super rude/offensive, I’ll most likely give you a 25. If I had to keep screaming at you to be clearer, you will also not get good speaks. On very rare occasions, I’ll award low point wins.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. I’m looking forward to seeing some fun rounds!