Chan,+Lucas

I debated for Palo Alto High School, graduating in 2011.

I’ll vote on any argument as long as it has a developed warrant and clear implication in terms of the ballot, but I am not a fan of affirmative framework choice or presumption. One-sentence blips and non-impacted arguments are not arguments. I don't like most critical arguments, so don't run them to try to get better speaks from me (it certainly won't hurt your speaks or influence my evaluation of the argument, though, so go ahead and run them if you fancy doing so).


 * I’m a mediocre flower**, so please, please, please, please slow down for author names and tags. You should also be signposting and enumerating your arguments; saying “moreover,” or “also” is generally okay, but I’ve seen it cause a decent amount of confusion, so play it safe. If you blaze through the author names of your carded block and fail to tell me the specific argument on the flow it responds to and/or how many arguments are being made in this block, your speaks could suffer. **SLOW DOWN FOR AUTHOR NAMES, TAGS, AND SIGNPOSTING**. Pausing for these sorts of transitions is the only way I'll keep up.

The earlier you weigh, the better. Your speaker points and the likelihood you win my ballot will both go up significantly. Extensions should be substantive and contain both the warrant and impact of the original argument (I'm more relaxed if an argument is conceded). I’m willing to give the affirmative a greater range of acceptable extensions due to time skew issues, but this comes with the risk of having underdeveloped and comparatively worse offense.

I’m A OK with theory and I evaluate it as an issue of competing-interpretations. I will also accept reasonability arguments if they're won decisively, but you’ll probably be more successful arguing for a counter-interpretation and making offensive answers to your opponent’s theory. It's unlikely i'll vote on RVI arguments, mostly because they are always underdeveloped.

Don't be an asshole in round, it makes me uncomfortable.