Gu,+Paul

I did 4 years of high school LD. I competed at the TOC and I am familiar with national circuit debate.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will NOT call cards to clarify arguments that I could not understand because of clarity issues. In general I would prefer not to call evidence at the end of the round except in specific circumstances (e.g. two pieces of evidence are very directly conflicting and analytical debate could not or did not resolve it, or there is a question about misuse of evidence etc.)

I have a medium threshold for theory. A theory position should be well developed even if it is a stock position that is frequently run on the circuit. I do not particularly care if it follows the “a) interpretation b) violation… “ format, but it does need to be complete and logical, meaning it would need to contain those elements in one form or another.

I will vote for critiques, but would strongly prefer that they be presented slower than other arguments, simply because I find that they are often very complex. They should also be explained in more detail, especially when very strange words start popping up everywhere. Finally, I am not very familiar with critiques in general, so the more clarity, the better.

I will not vote on arguments that are not fully developed with a claim, warrant and impact. That said, I will vote for any argument that is fully developed. This means I will vote on a-prioris, theory, critiques, etc., basically anything as long as you explain why it should be the primary standard for determining the ballot in the round. If no explanation is made, I will default to the criterion as the standard for evaluating the round.

Finally, I am not a fan of strategies that don’t engage in any sort of debate, but merely rely on tricky extensions (e.g. extend the spike under the a subpoint of the 3rd piece of framework this takes out the NC). While I will extend your argument and its implications, you will also probably not receive great speaks.