Dunbar,+Kate

Hi, I'm currently a Freshman at Swarthmore College. I did LD Nat Circuit Debating for 3 years at Newtown High School and attended NSD in 2012. So I'm pretty used to whatever people run on circuit and am currently coaching a varsity debater. I'll list more specific preferences/stuff below, but if there's anything I didn't clarify, feel free to ask before the round starts.

GENERAL I will flow anything argued, but I'm definitely less inclined to vote on unnecessary theory or abusive positions. Just try to have a very engaged round with lots of well articulated arguments and interaction between them.

SPEED Speed is fine. I'm used to spreading. Just make sure you're fairly understandable. I'll say clear once or twice if you're too fast or unclear, and take away speaks if it's still really hard to understand you. Be sure to slow down for author names and tags, it'll help me flow you better.

THEORY I think theory is more or less to cover actual abuse in round. I'll still evaluate a round if you run theory when there isn't really abuse, but I would prefer that you only run theory if it's actually necessary. Make sure to clearly outline if theory is a voting issue, RVI reasons and to weigh between your theory and your opps. I will go with competing interps or reasonability depending on what is better justified; if it's not justified/clarified, then I'll probably have to use reasonability. I'll vote on presumption only if absolutely necessary. Underviews/overviews are fine, and so is theory against theory spikes following that. I don't have a default on whether you need an RVI to win an offensive counter interp.

POLICY I'm good with plans/CPs, and ran them a lot. But if your plan or CP is pretty untopical or abusive, theory against that is fine, and I'll flow theory against Plans or CPs anyways. I know Ks but am less familiar with them/K lit, so you can run a K, just explain the position well. I'll flow theory against Ks, especially if they really skew ballot/role of the resolution. Disads are fine, but I'll be less okay with them if you run like 4+ disads. I'm familiar with PICs, but haven't run them, so just explain those positions well. And theory against PICs is fine, as they usually violate something. Generally though, I prefer substance interaction, so if you can actually engage with plan/CP or K lit, that would be a really good round. But I'll flow anything, just argue it well.

TOPICALITY I think debaters should be topical with the resolution. But, especially on neg, if you have arguments on how neg can negate differently, like just nulling the resolution, that's fine too. The more topical you can be the better, even with running conditional or specified positions e.g. plans, CPs, etc.

SUBSTANCE/PHILOSOPHY I'm pretty familiar with most philosophy arguments, and definitely like those. I also do like substance, so that would be good to have in the round. And even with a theory round, engaging with the actual substantive aspects of the theory will make the round better too. Be sure to say extend and explain extensions for me to keep flowing your points. I also really appreciate crystalization and clear voters because it will make the flow much easier to evaluate. Don't bring up or extend new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, just do it beforehand. I'll notice if you do that. I also understand Aff time crunch, but still crystalize and make it obvious which issues matter most in the round.

SPEAKING POINTS 30 would be a perfect round: basically no clarity or speaking issues, clear extension/weighing of points for me to evaluate and an interesting/compelling round. 29 would be a really good round: similar to the stuff for 30, but really good (not perfect) speaking and extensions. 27-28 means the round was good: good arguments, extensions and outlining key points and pretty good speaking ability with me not having to say clear often. 25-26 means the round wasn't very clear with perhaps speaking issues as well and lacked clear points to vote on; and was not very interesting. Anything below that means the round was very frustrating to evaluate, and arguments that could use work.