Slade,+Bo

Hey, name is Bo Slade and I graduated from Loyola High School in 2016 after debating 3 years of LD on the national circuit, I earned two bids my senior year and went to the TOC. I currently am a member of the Indiana University Debate Team for policy.

(Also don't say something offensive, don't feel like that has to be said but just in case)
 * Short version:**
 * __Will vote on anything__** so long as it 1) has some shred of a warrant and 2) I understand it coherently. I clarify what that means at the bottom but feel free to ask me before your round.

Speed: Fine, though go slow on tags, plan texts and interps.

IMPACT YOUR ARGUMENTS! I want to know why //everything// matters. Life is easier when I see a framework and offense that clearly links back to that framework.

NOTE: please...I beg of you, weigh your arguments, lack thereof could lead to judge intervention.

Extensions: I'm usually very lenient. You don't need to extend the obvious like your plan text, (unless it's super relevant). If you read a politics DA and the only thing your opponent responds with is uniqueness arguments, if you get up and say "extend the DA" and then go to the line by line is fine. Feel free to ask questions if need be.

Email/Flashing: You should always do it. I don't take prep for it. Don't be unreasonable. If I feel like it's going too long (somewhere in the over a minute range) then I'm going to tell you to wrap up. I usually like to be on email chains.

Speaks: I give 27-29.5 speaks. Speaks are given on the combination of: -strategy -clearness -humor -argument quality If your postions are already disclosed or if you disclose them after the round, you will get somewhere around a .2 bump in speaks if you're **open source** (highlighting and what not) then .5

Also, general note, cards can be overrated, just because an argument isn't carded doesn't mean it's warrantless. Just because an argument is analytical doesn't mean it's warrantless.


 * Long Version**

Theory I hate having to presume any voters or anything but I guess I have to. I default fairness, drop the argument and competing interps. But literally say anything during the round and you can change that, so however you tell me to evaluate is easy. Please weigh your standards! I am okay with all theory, necessary or frivolous. I usually lean spirit of the interp > text unless the text is super important like a T shell. If you say reasonability, please tell me what that means. I also am having trouble with the butchering of the edu v. fairness debate, make it clear. Though I am less persuaded by most frivolous shells, I can still vote for them if you make good arguments for 'em. I won't say any theory that I don't like, but here is the "flavor" of theory I prefer to see: -spikes bad/good -condo good/bad -PIC's good/bad -Must weigh T v. K Those are just examples, I'm obviously flexible on what I hear.

Kritiks I ran a lot in high school. I love K's that are nuanced and have very specific links. I will still vote on a K regardless, even if it's just a generic state link. I will obviously vote on any K, but if you're a good K debater, you will get high speaks. Here is what a "good K debater" means to me: If you go for a K, I want nice overviews, with long, **fleshed out warrants**, the more I understand the "mode of scholarship" that the K is promoting the better. Make you're internal link clear, don't just say the aff is biopower, biopower causes oppression. Show me how the link is an instance of biopoltical control and may culminate in the larger impacts you're talking about. Obviously, you don't need to do most of this if you're not going for the K in the next speech, but if you do go for it, do this. This is a fantastic guide on how to properly go for a K in front of me: http://premierdebatetoday.com/2017/02/09/5-fixes-to-improve-your-k-game/

Framework I can and will evaluate a complex framework debate, that being said, I don't know if I'm the best judge to run a complex deontological framework in front of me. Most of the frameworks I ran were either structural violence (all kinds of K like args), util, and Rawls. I can understand a straight forward version of a typical Kant/Ripstein FW or a Virtue Ethics framework, the problem occurs when you begin interacting with other frameworks. This interaction is usually poor, most debaters just spend their time attempting to uplayer and not responding to the substance of the framework they're refuting. When framework debates are good, they're really good, and when they're bad, they're really bad. Now, if you're confident that you are good at this, or you're willing to try it, then by all means go for it; otherwise, it's probably better to say Epistemic modesty and/or offense on their framework.

Other notes/things to consider -I won't evaluate embedded clash for you, those cross apps must be done in your speeches. Unless you tell me to evaluate it. -I'm not to persuaded by responses to defense that say "well it's still a risk of a link" you should respond to defense. If they say "no Russia-US war" you gotta respond with "yes Russia-US war" and explain. -I may or may not listen to Cx, if you want me to flow it, ask me - Clarification on what I will vote for: To clarify, if you have some a priori spike that says "vote me up because...swag" No, that's not an argument. Or "vote aff because the verbal passive participle of the conjunction 'ought' means the rez both true and false meaning, meaning everything is true..." or "the phantom's symbolic nature is shrouded in the rez, so we gotta vote aff" yeah...both of those are not arguments. I'm not closed off to that type of argumentation btw, just so long as you explain it. But those arguments above are not arguments, they are just buzz words. I'm obviously exaggerating in these examples, but you get the point.