Ritchie,+Ian

I debated PF for 3 years for Bingham High School in Utah, received three bids, and went to the ToC, including one from Berkeley. Since then I have been judging PF and LD at both local and national tournaments. = Summary: = I debated a fairly progressive style or PF throughout my debate career, and enjoy progressive style debates. However, this does not mean I have a bias in the way I will vote. I graduated, I don't get to determine the style of debate you take part in, meaning whether you want to take part in a traditional or progressive debate will not change how the ballot is signed.

Framework: The framework is the weighing mechanism the debate functions through. This means I will most likely not vote on substance arguments on face if they don't have a framework that makes them matter (i.e a genocide impact in round isn't going to be a voter if there isn't some kind of framework telling me why it actually matters.) Weigh your arguments. If, for whatever insane reason Framework is dropped or becomes such a disaster it's useless I will tend to default to cost-benefit.

Kritiks: I enjoy K debates, if the debater running them understands how it actually functions. There is nothing that frustrates me more than listening to someone try to explain kritikal literature for 45 minutes when they have no idea what they are talking about. If you plan to run a K in front of me, know the premise of the argument, and how it functions in round. The better the understanding, the more likely I will be to buy the K, as well as the higher your speaks will be.

T/Theory: I feel my greatest weakness in debate knowledge is T and theory debate, due to there being functionally no experience with this I gained from PF and my knowledge of both are not impressive. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on Theory, and a slightly lower threshold for T. I am very much more inclined to reject the arg, not the debater. If you are running Theory as a strategical advantage and not to actually check abuse, I will most likely literally ignore it unless it goes utterly nonrefuted, and even at that point i'm not likely to vote on it.

Speed: I am okay with moderate to high speed depending on clarity and usually can keep up, but if not I will tell you.

Performance: I maintain a high threshold for arguments across these lines. If you cant explain a cohesive voting story that actually makes sense, I probably wont vote on it. Still might get you some killer speaks if it entertains me though.

Extensions: I have a low threshold for extensions.