Tanquilut,+Danica

I debated LD at James Logan HS in California for four years, both locally and on the circuit. I’ve been coaching there for the past two years. I’m basically Ajjit but cooler and cuter, so check out his paradigm if there’s anything I missed here. Also feel free to ask me questions before the round or hit me up at dtanquilut@berkeley.edu (go bears!!).

The Nitty Gritty:

Speed is fine, but it’s been a while. Clarity is way more important to me than the actual speed at which you're reading things. I won't yell "clear" - just pay attention to whether or not I'm actually flowing your arguments or not. I'll put my pen down if I'm no longer following. Slow down on taglines, authors, and numbers. Also, don’t go fast just for the sake of going fast– if you speed through your AC in 4 minutes and then sit down I’ll dock your speaks because there’s no reason to do that. Like actually.
 * __Speed__**

I don’t really care about the structure of your framework (V/VC, ROB, etc.) as long as there’s a way for me to weigh impacts at the end of the round. I evaluate rounds by first establishing which framework to evaluate the round with, then looking at impacts from there. Util. is probably just the easiest thing for me to evaluate, but I do think critical positions and more philosophical frameworks are more interesting (see below). So take that as you will. Weighing is an undervalued skill in debate – make it easier for me to vote for you by telling me why your arguments matter more than your opponent’s. It’s your job to tell me why you should win the round, I just sign the ballot.
 * __Framework__**

I think theory can be used as a necessary response to in-round abuse. That being said, I have a very high threshold as to what constitutes abuse. I don’t like the way theory has been run on the circuit as a cheap way to get out of actual substantive debate – I would always much rather just evaluate substance, and if you force me to vote on frivolous theory, you’ll be met with low speaks. If you bait frivolous theory, you’ll be met with even lower speaks. If you do choose to run theory, it's really important that your standards all have explicit links to your voters. I default to requiring counter interps but can fairly easily be persuaded otherwise. Again, I really don't enjoy frivolous theory, so I default to theory being a reason to reject the debater unless someone gives me a really good reason to think otherwise.
 * __Theory__**

I like kritiks/critical arguments – I think they’re really cool ways of thinking about the resolution and the implications of what people do/say. However, I’m not particularly familiar with a lot of critical literature. I will very much enjoy watching rounds with critical positions and you’ll be rewarded with high speaks if you run them well, but if you do choose to run one, please slow down a bit.
 * __Kritiks__**

Extensions are important. They don’t need to be super lengthy, especially in the 1AR, but they do need to contain your argument’s claim, warrant, and impact. I won’t vote on arguments that aren’t extended through the whole round.
 * __Extensions__**

__**Flex Prep**__ I don't care. Just agree with your opponent on how you want this to go down.

I decide speaks on a number of things: mainly, I look for how clear/organized you are throughout the debate and how easy you make it for me to judge the round. Just be nice to your opponent and don't make blatantly racist/ableist/homophobic/offensive remarks or arguments and you won't get anything lower than a 27. I’ll probably average at a 28-28.5ish. Extra speaks if you make me laugh, but I’ll probably cringe if you’re trying too hard.
 * __Speaks__**