Clarke,+Lucas

Overview
Email is lucasclarke8@gmail.com -send me docs and counterinterps.

Hi everyone I’m Lucas. Debated in the circuit 2014-2017, went to TOC senior year with 5 bids, and did ok. I like technical Nat circuit debate a lot, and find “traditional” debate a bit dull.

For 2017 keep in mind I’m a first year out with very limited judging experience. If you had to choose between me or a 2/3+ year out who isn’t necessarily your favorite: I heavily advocate that you go for the other person. Anything you don’t see here that you need to ask about find me on Facebook and hop to it. If you don’t like my decision you have two things you can do I won’t vote on anything I find to be an instance of an -ism. I’ll down you. At the same time, my definition of what an instance of an -ism is will be different from yours, so if I don’t buy the reps link there is a very good discussion to be had there where you can teach my why I should.
 * 1) Accept it and storm out. Totally fine I get it
 * 2) Calmly (key word) hit me with the parts of the flow that you think are important. Chances are you lost because of
 * 3) Not clear
 * 4) Too blippy to consider it to have a real warrant.
 * 5) Didn't understand it

If your team has decided they have a non-disclosure policy/advocate that your opponent reads your full cite before the round instead of giving them tag+first three last three you can go ahead and strike me. I’d vote on that disclosure theory the second those screenshots hit my computer.

Larp-1 T-1 Theory-2 K-2/3 Framework/Dense K/tricks-3 or below

Speaks
Weighing is the principle decider when it comes to this. Give me an And/Next for a card/analytic switch. Good vocal modulation is very important or I won’t keep up.

I’ll say clear 3 times. My threshold for clarity isn’t necessarily high but come on.

30: If the collapse goes the way I think it will throughout the debate, if the tech is well done, if the time-allocation is good. If you are great. 29.5: strong debater 29: good debater

Anything below this is either because you are literally incomprehensible/shitty strat/too aggressive. I was p aggressive sometimes so I get it but if you see raised eyebrows tone it down. I’m nice with speaks, I think that people don’t deserve a screw. At the same time, it will be merciless if you really screw up. I’ll disclose speaks too why don’t people do that? Idk.

General

 * I like speed.
 * I presume neg always.
 * New in the 2 responses to spikes/args like plan flaw I'm lenient about.
 * Comparative Worlds>Truth Testing. Avoid the latter in front of me for the most part.
 * I’ll most likely hack for util in a framework debate.
 * Non-T affs are not really the A-strat for me. Not necessarily that you can’t read them but I do buy T. Especially if you drop the specific net benefits and try to go big picture because that ends up being a bunch of conceded offense that nobody ever weighs against and it’s very sloppy.
 * My favorite round is a policy approach from the aff with neg going for something along the lines of CP/DA/K/relatively legit theory. Not altogether necessarily. Just give me some larp and vertical layering and you’ve done well.
 * Don’t read evidence ethics rules that are frivolous. NDCA rulebook shells are too low-brow for me, I won’t vote on it, we can go to tab if you want to get grumpy.
 * I've decided I have a high threshold for extensions. It's not that I won't grant you a shit extension and thus impact, it's that most extensions seem to leave me with no concept of the impact or how I'm framing it. This is work that I really really don't want to have to do.

Theory/T

 * Default Competing interps/Drop the Debater/No RVI.
 * o At the same time, I think truth>tech in certain theory debates. I prefer a legitimate abuse claim that doesn’t push for a positive obligation from the violator. In instances that don’t meet this you should not read the shell/go for reasonability if responding.
 * Semantics always second to pragmatics: don’t go for nebel go for limits
 * Reasonability brightlines are good here and for the most part I’m persuaded by disclosure
 * I think that competing interps gives me leeway to assume spirit of the interp in most instances.
 * You need a case list and warranted examples to be persuasive.
 * For framework specifically Reading a topical version of the aff is pretty much critical to your chances of winning here. Even if I’m probably more on the side of the neg here there are certain technical aspects that need to be met.


 * Do weighing. Anyone who says they can pick out individual stuff from the shell is probably lying, so big picture weighing is extremely important.
 * Fairness is a voter; however, if the violation is mini I’ll easily vote on the impact turns.
 * CX does check.
 * Solvency advocate theory is very legit, but I’m lenient about the burden.

“K” Debaters

 * I won’t vote for your rhetoric (in most instances) but will vote on the line by line. You can grandstand but there needs to be substantiation.
 * The link needs to be clear.
 * Read the card and then point out where the aff explicitly links.
 * Weigh the impact. If it’s an internal link claim, make that argument. Make it so that I can conceptualize how I should be able to evaluate the impact: don’t make some vacuous claims.
 * I’ll most likely vote on state good if they haven’t bungled the debate.
 * Non-T K affs need a few things to clear my threshold
 * An explicit text that details what the advocacy is meant to do.
 * A justification for the ballot.
 * Solvency advocate.
 * I need to know the world of the alt. Your aff needs to have what is functionally a plan text. Actor, mechanism, etc. If not, it’s immediately abstract if you won’t clarify further.
 * I accept reject the aff if there’s weighing/k doesn’t link to squo/an independent counter advocacies