Lee,+Ryan

Tufts University '20 - second-year parliamentary debater (APDA / USUDA), talk to me about Tufts and/or majoring in English / Political Science / Philosophy!

Lexington High School '16 - 4 years policy debate (NatCir / MSDL), some public forum (MSDL)

second year judging National Circuit varsity policy; Harvard will be my first tournament on the education topic

**TLDR**  If it's not on my flow in the final rebuttal, I'm not voting for it. I will NOT follow along on speech docs and will ONLY look at evidence if the evidence (quality, content, etc.) itself is contested. All argumentation is the debaters' responsibility to make coherent in the final rebuttals.

Please try to show that you understand your arguments and how they work in the round. I really don't care what your speed or speaking style is like and honestly I don't really know what your reputation is. If you want an argument to count, particularly if you're running something like Baudrillard or framework, it seems to me that you should be able to explain it clearly and simply. This will be crucial to speaker points and could end up deciding the round - again, I will not let your cards do the work for you; debates in front of me are won off of the arguments that the debaters articulate.

Harmful / intentionally disrespectful conduct will tank speaker points. If you feel that your opponents have caused you personal injury, I'd be open to you arguing that they should lose the ballot for their behavior.

Run what you do best and please ask me any other questions you have before the round!

**Background**

2017-2018 Topic: I have done research work in U.S. education policy, but not in a debate context. I did NOT work at a debate camp and you should NOT expect me to know acronyms.

Ks: I have some background knowledge in "identity" and "high theory" criticism. If you have more specific questions, I will welcome them before the round.

Nota Bene: I strongly believe that - for the majority of high school policy debates - I should not and do not need extensive background knowledge to adjudicate the round. You can assume that I have common sense and general knowledge. If you want any other fact or theory to count in the round, I expect you to say and explain it.

**Speaking**  I err on the side of giving generous speaker points. With that said, these are the things I'm looking for, from most to least important:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">1. clarity - in terms of literal speaking and in terms of explanation

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">2. knowledge of your ev/args

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">3. level of explanation / big picture analysis in speech(es) after the first constructives

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">4. ethos

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">5. everything else

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Specific Arguments** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Disclaimer: These are opinions, but they are not guaranteed ballots. For example, I personally think that a conditional K and a conditional CP are fine for the neg to defend, but I will only vote off of arguments presented in the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**DAs**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">They're great! Do analysis. Politics is not my favorite, but I did go for it a lot! <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CPs**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think you need to have solvency advocate evidence in the 1NC. Otherwise good! I'm really not sure what else to put here - if you have specific questions, ask me before the round starts. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Ks**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Explanation > all else. I'll give good speaker points for demonstrated knowledge of your material. I am less inclined to vote (for or against a K) if there are smart buzzwords but there isn't explanation of how they work. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Performance**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Great! Make sure I know why a ballot for you is important / good. Also be clear on your interpretation of what debate is - is it a training ground? do you expect to resolve external impacts through your literal performance? is it an intellectual conversation about the best possible world? <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**T / Framework**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I NEED TO KNOW WHY FRAMEWORK WAS YOUR ONLY OPTION.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think that the aff should be topical, but what being topical means is up to the debaters to determine. I default to competing interpretations but could be convinced of reasonability.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have yet to see an affirmative whose education should be excluded from debate. I think debate should allow discussion of identity, etc. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Case**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">PLEASE. Neg case debates = The Best. They'll get you speaker points for sure, especially if you've gone out and found some arguments specific to the case. Explanation matters a lot. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Conditionality**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">A K and a CP are fine, but any more is probably abusive. It's worse if the 1NC is blippy (ex. no-solvency-advocate CPs). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Other Theory**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please only do this if there's actually abuse. If you have a habit of going for theory just because you have mad blocks to something, please don't. My personal opinion is that theory only exists to keep from egregious violations of fairness / education. If the team calling a theory violation does not show a clear abuse story, I may still vote for them, but expect it to be a low-speaking round.