Alladi,+Om

I debated for 3 years for Monta Vista High School. I went 4-3 at TOC my senior year. I was a K debater, though I appreciate good stock debate now more than K debate. I am also a parli debater in college, and have been for the last four years. I have been unofficially and officially coaching random __students__, both from Monta Vista and other __schools__. You guys probably are reading this right before the round, so I'll make this brief:

I will buy any argument that you convey to me to be logically coherent. If I do not understand an argument, I will make the best effort to understand it, because I don't think debaters should be limited by the intelligence or beliefs of the judge. When making my decision, I default to evaluating the round to whichever debater provides me a way to look at it (ie, T first, then impacts, or K first, etc.) if debaters __offer__ competing interpretations of how to evaluate the round that are unresolved (as in which framework comes first), I default to whichever interpretation has the greatest __degree__ of offensive clash; IE, I will choose to prevent exclusion of arguments whenever possible, in the interests of not overlooking something and providing the most accurate decision. If nobody gives me any analysis on which arguments to consider first/how to evaluate the round, I first look at whether there is affirmative offense, and __work__ backwards to see if they get to that offense (first on standards, then on the NC, then on theory, etc).

I try to be as "tab" as possible, but as everyone, I am predisposed to certain ways of thinking. These are not arguments I will NOT vote for, but ones that I believe are arguably true.

Speed: 1) I will be able to flow you if you are clear, regardless of speed. I will call for cards 2) I will yell clear once. Then you should pay attention to whether i'm following you

Theory: 1) conditionality is awesome 2) negs should get 1 cp OR 1 K and the squo 3) aprioris suck - if you run theory that they should be viewed as "defense" as opposed to "offense" (in terms of a comparative worlds vs truth-testing paradigm) I will find that persuasive 4) T is a voting issue, and "competing interpretations" is better than "potential abuse" most of the time

Standards: i'll listen to anything. I do have a background in philosophy, so if you're deep on the lit in terms of meta ethical issues, do that. if you are better at the util debate, do that. I will say that my most recent experience has been adjudicating util stuff.

Kritiks: 1) no problem; i have a lot of knowledge of a lot of authors, so don't feel bad about reading the most obscure authors in front of me. i will make an effort to understand your arguments. 2) i think the a2 K strat is sweet, and i love hearing a good a2 K block (__fiat__ good, alt disads, perms etc)

Extensions: 1) I only put this here because I think I'm more different than other judges about this - I don't mind blippy extensions that only get out the warrant. I think that if you are going to win the round, extensions are part of a narrative about why and thus necessary; but outside of that, I think that I don't like to evaluate "she/he did not get the extension out of the card", especially if it was particularly apparent or implicit. debate should move forward educationally, not be limited by technicalities 2) this means i prioritize content over form. if someone does a poor job of extending something i am more interested in the competing narrative of arguments. of course you can still make args like "no extension - reject the arg", i just presume the arg is extended well enough 2) this is not to say don't bother extending stuff. but i will buy "Extend Smith - aids rates are high" or "Extend Mead - economic decline causes nuclear war", because it allows for MORE card weighing and comparison; "prefer my ev because it postdates/better cred/more causalities accounted for" etc.

Speaks: after the ac, and the nc, I make a determination during cross-ex of what I believe to be the most strategic thing to do would be. If you execute that strategic vision perfectly and articulately, you will get at max a 29.5. If you do something completely different, that actually produces an even better result (that I had not thought of) you will get a 30. Otherwise, my speaks will go between 27-29 depending on how articulate you are, how word economic you are, and how strategic you are.

Other stuff that will net you speaks: nuance, creativity, and dominance. 1) I am very impressed by advanced weighing (weighing standards comparison, argument interaction etc) 2) I like multifunctional arguments 3) I dislike spike debate, and will reward you if you decide to debate straight up 4) structure is KEY. I really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc. but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the appropriate function, ie "1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency takeout" i will appreciate it immensely

My philosophy is premised around the idea that its your game, and you should be free to do what you like - literally anything - as long as you can back up your claims. So have fun.