Blake,+Hayward

**Stylistic Comments**

* I do not discriminate between policy, kritikal, and performance debating styles. If you have a strategic, well thought-out argument and are able to defend it, I will give it a fair and balanced consideration.

* Please be ready to give your speech when your prep is up. Too much 'grey area' time and I will dock your speaks. Tag team is fine. If you need an accommodation, just ask.

* 2NR and 2AR should summarize the round and why you win; you must give me a framework for how to evaluate the round (and why that framing is good). Much harder for me to vote for you if you don't do that.

* Tell me how to evaluate every argument and every impact. I'm not sure how to compare racial violence to nuclear radiation poisoning, but sometimes that's what I'm left with. I will not assume what you want me to do with your argument.

* I will not make arguments for you or the other team, but I cannot pretend that my opinion is irrelevant. It's important that you balance your tech with persuasion. Part of persuasion is looking at me and speaking to me as a human being at some point in the round. If you are constantly out of breath and stammering, you need to slow down.

**Specific Arguments**

* __Kritiks__: I am proficient in race debate (Sexton, Wilderson, Gumms, Afro-pessimism, optimism, futurism), IR theories, feminist theories, intersectional theories/Puar, "high theory" (Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bataille, et cetera). I am most well-versed in Queer theory.

* __Theory__: Love it, but you must go for it for at least 3 minutes in the 2NR/2AR (preferably all 5) if you want me to seriously consider it. The terms 'education,' 'fairness,' or 'portable skills,' are meaningless unless you tell me what exactly you mean.

* __Framework/Topicality__: I believe fairness and education are internal links to larger impacts, and are strategically meaningless in and of themselves. It is imperative that you be specific about what exactly is gained or lost as a result of some mechanism of your worldview. * __Concessions__: My threshold for voting on conceded arguments is higher than most judges. I must be persuaded by the first time it is introduced in order for me to pull the trigger. "Blowing it up" in later speeches is all new argumentation that the other team is allowed to answer.

* __Disads/CPs__: Love 'em, but you must explain your advocacy/scenario. As I haven't researched on this topic, I may not know your specific scenario.

* __.1% risk__: I will not make this argument for you, and you must win it. If you cold concede a legit no-internal link argument, how can you still have 1% risk? Some defense is strong enough to give a scenario 0% risk.

**About Me**

* I've debated and judged policy for 5 years and parli for 1, mainly in the Chicagoland area.

* There's nothing new under the sun. While I am relatively versed on most literature you'll want to run, I don't know everything. It's your responsibility to explain your argument and evidence; don't make me look at your cards.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">*** Don't add me to the email** **chain.** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">*** I flow on my laptop. If you'd like to see them after the round, just let me know!** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">*****__**Be nice and enjoy the debate! Any questions, I'd be happy to talk! :)**__