James,+Ryan

**Ryan James** Email: ryanjames0016@gmail.com - add me to the email chain Emory University '21 Debated 4 years at McDonogh ('17)

**Top Level:** Do you, I will equally evaluate any argument (unless clearly, intentionally, and/or inherently unethical) as long are you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate and respectful way. I will try to be as objective as possible. My history in non-traditional/performative debate does not mean that I "default" to these arguments or will prefer them over any other sort of argument - if you win the debate, you win the debate. I am still familiar with traditional forms of debate, but heir to the side of more explanation for topic DA contextualization. I love seeing smart/new/strategic arguments. The best way to get a ballot in front of me is for the 2NR/2AR to attempt to best stitch together all of the previous moving parts of the debate together and paint a story for how voting your way would look like. This may include a role of the ballot/debate/judge but not necessary. **K/Performance/Non-traditional Affs & T/Framework:** - I am flexible with alternative ways of viewing the topic. What I have read/believe is true however does not necessarily matter in these debates though because (like I said above) if you win you win. An aff that's not T can still win against T/FW and a T aff can lose on T/FW. It all depends on the debate and what your arguments are. - I will not prescribe to you how you should read your args - as long as you believe you are making smart/well-explained/strategic argument, do you and I'll evaluate it. - FW: Actually talk about the aff/what they do specifically instead of broad "no-plan bad". You can still win these debates but usually not at high-level competition. (T you won't have to worry about this as much) **Kritiks:** - Familiar with race-based Ks (STILL give me the story of the K esp. in the context of the aff, not everyone reads the same Ks the same way). - High-theory Ks will need to do explanation that isn't full of jargon even if it makes sense to you **DA/CP:** - DA: Solid link contextualization and impact work (assuming you are winning the basic stuff i.e. uq, i/l chains, etc.) and you'll be good. - CP: Open to them all, no matter how small/picky or big if you win the flow you win the CP <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speaker Points:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I evaluate based on what I have seen at your level of debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Generally 28.5 - 29.5 but you will be below or above if you need to learn/practice a lot more and practice or did exceptionally well and made very smart arguments that stitched the debate together, respectively. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CX:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Open, cool with using prep to prolong CX <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Of course reference if necessary in speech <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Misc:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Speed isn't everything - slower + clear > faster + hear every 5th word; I will also listen and usually flow the parts of the evidence you read/have highlighted <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Clipping: You and partner get L + 0 speaks, W + 30s for opponents, taken up with tab <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Saving the doc, emailing, flashing, that whole process is not prep