Fleury,+Vincent

Experience: 4 years of policy in my High School years and minor judging roles for less than 6 months.

Speaking:

1) Spreading: I am fine with spreading of articles but NOT taglines and authors. If you spread those I will likely put down my pen. The same applies for impact calc, theory, T and Framework. If you spread those I will not be able to keep up with full comprehension.

2) Bullet-pointing: Number each of your points, especially when it non formatted argumentation, i.e. theory. I may mesh arguments and miss taglines/authors otherwise.

3) Clarity: Be clear when you speak or don’t speak at all. I don’t want to hear, “Uhm, uhh, like” every other word. It is incredibly distracting.

4) No derogatory language. Even if it is in a card or necessary to run a K, omit it or don’t run it. I will not vote for anything that uses any language that discriminates against others. This means using any terms like: retarded, gay, ect. as insults, propagating stereotypes by using them or any prejudice slurs. Your speaker points will also be severely impacted and I will likely vote you down, there is no excuse for ignorance.

5) Swearing occasionally is fine, just don’t let it interrupt your clarity.

Cross-Ex: Concessions are binding, just as much so as a plan text. Also, I will not tolerate disrespect in cross-ex, you will be marked down. Always face me when speaking, or you will be marked down. Also, you must always give a reasonable answer in cross-ex, or at least some form of answer. If the question is unreasonable for some reason, explaining that to me should be your answer.

Theory: I’m always fine with theory. You must be reasonable with your theory however and have good framework with it in order for you to be able to win with it. I’m all about educational debate so education theory will run over well with me. The catch is you must spend real time on theory. It can’t just be an extension; it needs to be performance like.

Topicality: Don’t spread it, I will turn red with anger. I will vote on it only if you spend time on it in every speech. You have to convince me it is really a voting issue and not a time suck. If you kick out of a T, I have a bias that it is abusive but won’t care unless the other team wins a debate on the abusive nature of dropped T.

Voting: I vote on what you tell me to vote on. That means that if you fail to do an awesome and well organized impact calculus I may not vote for you even if you “should” win. I won’t do ANY of the work for you. You connect the dots for me and you make the pretty picture. If it is messy, I may vote “incorrectly”.

Time Signals: DO THEM YOURSELF! I’M FLOWING!

Electronics: Be prepared to have them die or fail on you. If something awful happens, tough. I think policy should be paper-only so don’t expect leniency with me. If you don’t have a paper copy to share with your opponents when they have rights to your evidence be prepared to hand over your laptop.

Prep-stealing- You won’t get a second of it with me. When you say stop-prep it doesn’t mean shit. When you start your road map is when I stop prep.

Evidence: You can ask for me to look at it. I will only do this if it is essential to one of your argumentations, i.e. cross reference of material or an evidence alteration accusation. Depending on the circumstances I will or will not use prep/speech time for this as I will be a variable. Also, if you card clip, or mis-cite you will lose the round. There must be great proof for that to happen.

Speaker Points- You will get marked down for: stuttering, breathing like a dying fish while you spread, too soft/loud speaking, derogatory speech, poor organization, wasted speech time, bad C-X practices, being uncouth, commotion during other team’s prep, team speaking (talking during your partner’s speech), making my flow messy, poor roadmaps, poor signposts/bullets, poor in-round strategy, arguing with me, not having fun/being boring, not taking debate seriously, prep-stealing.

I’m fine with you running whatever arguments you want, that includes performance/k affs. That means everything is potential voting issues as long as you can prove that to me by the end of the round. They’re also all fair until it is proven to me that they are not. Obviously, run each argument well.