VanderMeer,+Nicole

__**Background:**__ I debated LD for Bainbridge High School in Bainbridge Island, WA. During the 2012-2013 college season, I was a policy debater with the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta and my partner and I won the 2012 Vanderbilt Tournament. I am currently a PhD student in the history department at UC Santa Cruz.


 * __General:__** There are no arguments that I will reject on face besides those that are new in later speeches. I am fine flowing high speed rounds, since I'm used to the speed in high school LD and now encounter it regularly on the college policy circuit. I will shout clear unless and until I can understand you, but if I am saying it a lot there is a good chance I am not flowing much. Being forced to say clear a lot will also probably hurt your speaks, because debates in which very little is actually understood are miserable and nonstrategic. And, I won't vote on arguments that I don't have flowed or whose implications are not clear the first time they're made, so blippy arguments will not win you the round with me in the back of the room.


 * __Framework:__** I have to admit that I am not at all well-read in debate philosophy, but I am familiar with enough of it that you should be able to run a good variety of philosophical positions in front of me and be fine. I think you have to be doing a decent job explaining the implications of the philosophy in the round to pick up the ballot anyway, and if you are actually doing so sufficiently I will most likely be able to follow your argumentation. That said, I will not vote on arguments I do not understand as I am of the opinion that it is the responsibility of those debating to explain their arguments and do the work in the round. With this in mind, I am probably not the judge to go deep in the philosophy in front of, but not because I have any distaste for these debates. If you decide to read a dense/confusing position, make sure you frequently look up to see if I am flowing. If I am not, I'm probably confused and you should slow down and explain your arguments more thoroughly. I would love to learn more of the philosophy, and I'm slowly working on doing so with the hope of removing this blurb from my paradigm eventually. A last note on the framework – if you run AFC with an ethical framework I will be less than thrilled, but this will not prevent me from voting on it if you win. It will, however, likely cost you in terms of speaks.


 * __Theory:__** On theory, I will err on the side of drop the argument, not the debater unless I am told to do otherwise. Please try to slow down on theory, particularly on the interpretation/counter-interpretation, because fast theory debates make it difficult to catch all the nuances and particulars of a given shell. In terms of RVIs, I'll vote on them, but they will be evaluated like any other theory argument; no special preference for them from me. You have to win the RVI to the degree I would be comfortable voting for you on a shell you win. I make as much of an effort not to intervene as possible, so please do your best to sort out the theory debate before the round is over – I don't want to resolve it for myself on the flow, and you probably don't want me to do that either. With counter-interpretations please justify why I should prefer it; simply winning it isn't necessarily sufficient for me to vote on it. The only theory I am predisposed to not be sympathetic to are disclosure theory and out-of-round theory. At the very least, I will knock your speaks significantly and have a much lower threshold for responses to these arguments.


 * __Presumption:__** In terms of presumption, I will do everything I can to find another place to vote on the flow. I think it is impossible for a debate to end with no risk of offense on either side. At best, presumption can get me to err in favor of you on an unsettled portion of the flow, but I will never vote on it independent of another reason you're winning.


 * __Evidence:__** With evidence, I was always a card monkey on my team so I love hearing a wide variety of cards in a debate. That said, I think analytic positions can be just as interesting and nuanced, so don't feel like you have to just dump evidence in front of me. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if either a) I need to settle a conflict between evidence read by both debaters that was not settled in round, b) either you or your opponent asks for me to call for the evidence, or c) I think/know you have miscut the card(s). I will not be pleased if the latter is the case, and your speaks will suffer as a result.


 * __Extensions:__** Extensions need to be fleshed out in order for me to grant them any weight on the flow. If the argument is uncontested, the extension does not have to be as thorough as an extension made through responses needs to be. All extensions should include the warrant(s) of the argument and should be impacted in terms of the round and why I should care about them. Please, please, please do weighing! In the absence of weighing in the round, I will look for the easiest place to vote, and you will likely not be happy with my decision.


 * __CX/Prep:__** In terms of CX and prep time, I am fine with flex prep if your opponent agrees to it, but please don't waste everyone's time using your 7 or so minutes of prep to simply pull files from the bowels of your computer. I think CX is a wonderful strategic tool, anyway, so I don't think it is ever in your interest to opt out of using at least some of the time for questions. If you are going to expect me to keep track of your prep time during the round please let me know from the start, otherwise I will leave it to you and your opponent to figure out time use.


 * __Speaks:__** And finally, as far as speaker points go, I will try to average at around a 28. If you're getting less than 26 from me you either did something horribly inappropriate, rude, or offensive or made an enormously glaring strategic error in the round. Please be courteous to your opponent; there's no reason to be a d*ck in round.

If you have any other questions about how I vote/what I like to see in a round, please do not hesitate to ask me - VanderMeerNC@gmail.com.