Gormisky,+Rob

Quick bit for people who are reading this right before round: I did LD four years on the circuit/locally although I was only really successful at more traditional type tournaments Speed is fine. I'll yell clear once and then I will stop flowing. Like everyone else says, the most important thing is clarity. Kritiks are usually interesting to me, but if you know it's dumb then so will I so don't run dumb kritiks! Theory is fine, but you have to slow down for it if you want me to understand the nuances of the shell. Flex-prep is cool. It's your time. Basically, run what you want as long as it is good and clear.

Emory Update: it seems like plans are really popular so I just want to say that I can follow policy arguments well because I did a bit of policy at nationals one year (I broke lol). But, I would still prefer that the evaluative standard is based in ethics. As usual, run whatever as long as it doesn't suck and makes sense.

Longer Version for interested individuals:

I debated four years of LD for La Salle College High School in PA and I coach there now. I am also now a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. As far as experience goes, I went to NDF one summer and competed on the circuit moderately frequently. I was much better at the more traditional PA style of debate, but I generally consider myself technically proficient in all the more circuit-y skills like spreading, comprehending more complex arguments, and theory. So, you don't have to worry about me not understanding terminology or whatever.

I am fine with speed merely because it is the convention on the circuit and I don't want to rock the boat. However, I appreciate debaters that can make logical arguments at a pace that normal people might talk at. That said, you can talk at whatever speed you want as long as it is intelligible and I won't hold anything against you, you just won't be getting any bonus speaks for going quickly. As I said earlier, I will yell clear once and then I will stop flowing if I can't understand you. You will be able to tell when I'm not flowing so look if you have any concerns.
 * Speed**

I think a good theory debate is very interesting and fun to watch. I think a bad theory debate is like having my eyes cut out. The point here is that you should only run theory if it is necessary and well thought out. Otherwise, I will probably hate you and give you low speaks.I typically default to competing interpretations, but I am open to arguments about other ways that I should evaluate theory.
 * Theor**y

Also, if you are reading a prewritten shell then slow down! I cannot flow at even one fifth of the speed you speak so don't expect me to get everything in a shell down if you go at your normal spread.

I particularly dislike the trend of writing two shells, one with interpretation A and the other with opposing interpretation B. If your opponent runs interp A and your immediate response is to pull out a shell with Interp B or vice versa then you (yes, you as an individual) are systematically destroying critical thinking. So, if someone runs an interp that isn't abusive then don't run theory just because you wanted to run a quick, time consuming off case. Nothing pisses me off more than that. Also, don't run theory about things that happen outside of the round like "s/he didn't disclose on the wiki theory" or "your coach is a tool theory". Those are just really stupid arguments to make.

Like I said above, I think Ks are pretty interesting in general. One of my main problems with more traditional debate is that the breadth of philosophies you can apply in front of most judges is relatively limited. I think Kritiks are a good way to break out of that model. That said, there is a potential for a lot of dumb shit to be thrown into the Kritik category so try to avoid that. However, if you cut an interesting K for the topic and you want to try running it, I would be the judge to do that in front of. I wasn't a K debater in high school, but I always enjoyed rounds when I hit a Kritik because it was uniquely thought provoking. Except for when I hit a kritik about dolphin rape. That K was neither interesting nor thought provoking and just made me sad. You know if your K is like dolphin rape so make that judgment on your own. I will make sure you get like five speaker points if you run something as dumb as dolphin rape so just don't do it.
 * Kritiks**

I always liked judges that gave high speaks so I want to be one of those judges (Yay for you!). Obviously I won't be handing out 30s every round, but I won't give less than a 28 to a decent debater, even if you lost. Also, Protip: I appreciate people that give me food and I also give high speaks to people that I appreciate. But I never said that to you.
 * Speaker** **Points**

I find that I have a pretty high threshold for extensions because I usually at least restated something close to a warrant when I extended things while debating. At the end of the day, you do actually have to convince me of your position in every speech so I think you should extend claim, warrant, impact most times. I have a lot more leniency for aff debaters here because of the time skew, but obviously a full extension is preferable.
 * Extensions**

The next part of my paradigm is stolen from Sean Janda's because I agree with everything he says here: **Truth-Testing vs. Comparing Worlds**: Absent any in-round argumentation, I default to truth-testing, because I personally believe that comparing worlds simply has too many flaws to use as a fully coherent paradigm for evaluating the round. That said, in my view, the way I "truth-test" is generally by finding a moral framework to link to the evaluative term in the resolution and then judging links back to that.

One caveat: I know that a lot of people who identify themselves as truth-testers might like things like a prioris and skepticism and other stuff like that. Seriously, though, I don't. (Note: I don't like these strategies when run in combination with substantive debate. If you plan on going for a 7 minute skepticism k, I'm much more fine with that.) I just feel that the proper way to combat those strategies is through theory, rather than through paradigm debates. What this means for you as a debater is a couple of things. First, if you plan on running those types of arguments, I'll vote on them without a link to something "undesirable." (e.g. if you run skepticism, that's enough for me to pull the trigger--you don't need to link it to genocide or some other utilitarian impact). Second, though, if you're hitting somebody running one of these strategies, please don't pull out your "comparing worlds good" block. Instead, run theory--I'll probably be more sympathetic to it. That said, I'm not saying I won't vote on "comparing worlds good." I'm only saying that it'll be easier for you to win the theory. ** Note: I have no paradigmatic problem with voting on a prioris. Personally, I think they're unfair, but I also think debaters have gotten much, much better at defending them in the past two years. So, if you think you can defend them theoretically, then feel free to run them in front of me. I honestly won't dock your speaks or refuse to vote on them if you're winning the theory debate. **

Weighing is probably the single thing that will make my job the easiest as a judge and your chances of winning the greatest. So, please do it. Remember, though, that weighing is only useful when it's comparative. That is, saying "I outweigh on magnitude because a lot of people die" is not good. Saying "I outweigh on magnitude because more people die in the aff world than in the neg world. [Insert warrant for why.]" is good. Also, make sure that you compare weighing. If the neg tells me that he outweighs on magnitude but the aff tells me that she outweighs on probability, it's like neither of you did any weighing at all. So, make sure you tell me why to prioritize your weighing.
 * Weighing **

Random arguments I hate: -"Debates must have a plan" theory -Ought as logical consequence -Out-of-round-based theory (disclosure, spectator, etc.) -"Debaters must use consequentalism" theory -Ks without alts -Anything that requires a 1% chance of a link for you to win (e.g. taint of injustice) -Answering any argument by saying, "This is LD and in LD you have to..." -Not having a decision calculus in the AC -Performances (although humorous ones might be okay. I really don't want to hear your sob stories though. Go do DI)