Lee,+Chris

I debated for four years in high school for Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology, most of it at the varsity level. In my spare time, I still actively teach and coach newer debaters (or ones at any level, really). I love reading, so I have a fairly wide background when it comes to what I know. I have no problems with speed or jargon, but see "Speaker Points" for the caveats. Since you probably don't have that much time to read this, I'll bullet points of interest below. But in a nutshell-- policy debate is still debate. If you fail to persuade me, you're not going anywhere.

Also, four clear preferences that don't fit neatly into these categories:
 * I love analytical arguments. If you make sharp ones, I will reward you amply for them.
 * Don't try to bullshit me. I will catch you if you're making up nonsense.
 * Engage with warrants. I won't call for evidence, but if you just extend a tagline I'm not likely to buy it.
 * As a former 2AR, I am firmly convinced that 2ARs are pathological liars (2NRs too). That's not really a problem, but let's be honest. I //highly// doubt that the other team dropped every single one of your arguments.
 * Core Tenets**
 * Debate is ultimately about persuasion. You have to persuade me why I should care about anything you're saying before I'll vote on it.
 * Speech times and speech order are rules. Respect them.
 * A dropped argument goes dead. That goes for either side. For example, if you don't bring your advantages up in the 2AC, then I won't vote on them.
 * "We win because they dropped //x//" is not an argument, it's a claim. If you don't make warranted arguments, then I don't count them.
 * Constructives are constructives, and new arguments in the 2NC are mean-- but fair game.
 * Fiat exists. I'm a policymaker judge. You're going to have an uphill battle convincing me otherwise (though it can be done).
 * Cross-ex is binding. No, I won't flow what's said as an argument, but you are responsible for what you say.
 * Performance has a time and place. You need to convince me that policy debate is one of them.
 * Trolling arguments are all fun and games, but they don't have a place in my decision, and they aren't going to win you any points. I **strongly** advise you drop these.
 * Speaker Points**
 * I will not give you speaker points because you speak faster than the other team.
 * I will not give you speaker points for being clear. I will, however, dock them if you aren't. This is a basic expectation and I don't see why I should reward you for being understandable-- that's a given.
 * I am not afraid of giving low (< 25) speaker points. Yes, it'll mess with your rankings. Yes, you should take that into consideration.
 * If you're the most brilliant technical speaker in the world but you're not persuasive or clear, the best you can hope for is probably a 26.
 * Slurs of any kind-- racial, sexual, or those against health (read: words like "retarded")-- are one-way tickets to sub-twenty scores. Don't.
 * But while I don't like it, I don't mind at all if you swear. First, it happens. Second, it's a valid means of expression.
 * Be engaging and interesting for higher points. I am not here to make money. There are far better ways to do that. So keep me interested, and make me laugh.
 * Be polite. If you're arrogant and condescending, you're losing the "speaker" part of "speaker points". Actually, you're losing points too.
 * Low point wins can and will happen.
 * If you're not clear, I'll give you one verbal warning. After that, I will put my pen down and glare at you.
 * Case Debate**
 * I think the case is the aff's strongest weapon. Use it.
 * I expect case extensions. If you don't bring your impacts up consistently throughout the round, I'll count them as dead.
 * You have time as the aff to prepare the 1AC. Don't mess it up.
 * If the neg drops the case, I consider that a major red flag. Even if you don't get to it until the block, get around to it at some point.
 * Stock issues are important. I expect to see all of them defended adequately, though I presume the affirmative is topical to begin with.
 * Disadvantages**
 * I love well articulated disads. I don't see why they're not valued much anymore.
 * I will listen to kritikal or linear-risk disads. I used to run them, so I tend to be sympathetic.
 * Counterplans**
 * The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. You can kick CPs.
 * I think conditionality is fine, but if you're running multiple conditional advocacies I will start listening to aff theory.
 * I'm leery of insubstantial PICs. You'd better have **specific** evidence and warrants for why I should even care about your PIC.
 * Kritiks**
 * I don't like kritiks because I see too many teams using them as a lazy way of not answering any aff arguments. Don't do this.
 * I'm familiar with a good amount of lit, but not all of it. Explain it, and impact your kritiks clearly.
 * If you get into a root cause debate, then be very clear about why you're the "real" root cause. If both teams are just yelling that they're the root cause of the other, I will pelt you with paper snowballs.
 * See the first section. If it's trolly, be //very// wary if you run it.
 * Make a clear alternative. If there isn't one, the neg doesn't really have much of a case.
 * Topicality/Theory**
 * If you don't show me real in-round impacts and abuse, I'm not going to vote on it. Simple as that.
 * I don't believe that my decisions are going to have ripple effects in the debate community as a whole. Keep that in mind.
 * I cannot emphasize the first point enough. I am almost entirely unsympathetic to most topicality arguments precisely because they don't have any real bearing on whether or not the neg can debate the aff effectively.
 * I will listen to theory if you're winning the standards **and** voters debates. Yes, both of them.
 * RVI's won't happen **unless** you're running an absolutely phenomenal K of T and I buy it.
 * I will reject the argument unless instructed to do otherwise.
 * Framework**
 * I LOVE FRAMEWORK.
 * As you might guess, I default to a utilitarian framework (policymaker). But I have a soft spot for deontology.
 * It's not enough to say the other team's framework is bad. Give me a counterframework, because otherwise I still don't have a choice but to accept the other team's.

Again, in sum: be strategic, and tell me why you win. If you don't, then you're not going to get anywhere.