Baker,+Graham

I have debated for the Greenhill School for 2.5 years (2013-2016). I've been coached by Aaron Timmons, Josh Roberts, Bekah Boyer, Chris Randall, Rebecca Kuang, and Eric Forslund. I have certain thresholds, which are pretty similar to Josh Roberts'. If you can't find a certain topic that you just NEED clarified just look at his judging paradigm. Speed is all good. I've only ever had a problem understanding one debater, and if you are as fast as him I will tell you.
 * General**

Please flash. If you don't flash, it's a problem. I will deduct 3 speaks. If you do an email chain, I will give both debaters an extra 1.5 speaks. I know what you're thinking, that then your opponent will take your evidence and share it everywhere! I don't see a problem with that. If you cut good evidence, you have no reason to hide your evidence from your opponents. It actually means you might have to defend your evidence! Oh no!
 * Flashing**

Ehhh I read them a ton, but no longer my favorite. I have read some critical literature, both with more traditional critical literature like Heidegger, Baudrillard, and Batille. I have also done extensive reading on race-based positions. This being said, please don't read dumb generic K's with bad link arguments that you then don't explain. I won't just make the K args for you, you have to explain them.
 * The K**

Plans are a good thing, please read them. Condo is fine, just have a defense of why condo offs are okay. I think reps args are great.
 * Policy Arguments**

I run a lot of topicality. It's a good argument, and I am willing to vote on it. I will never ever evaluate drop the arg claims against topicality; the aff is your advocacy which you have to link offense back to, if the neg wins your aff advocacy isn't topical, then you have no advocacy and thus can't have any offense.
 * Topicality**

I love theory, and think that a good theory debate is one of the best kind of debates. I default to competing interps but can be easily persuaded to reasonability. I think that potential abuse is a thing.
 * Theory**

I have read a lot of philosophers work because I had Marshall Thompson as a lab leader, so I can probably understand your arguments. Please explain the framework, and do weighing between justifications. I don't think there is only one way to put together a framework, so it can be Value/Standard, Role of the Ballot, burdens, etc.
 * Framework**