Bowyer,+Jonathon

As background, I debated for four years for Scarsdale High School on both local and national circuits.

I'm ok with speed, and will yell clear if I can't understand you. In all honesty, waiting for me to say clear isn't the best strategy, though - look at me and see if I'm flowing what you're saying for the best indication. If you're going to run an intensely philosophical position, slow down so both your opponent and I can understand what you're saying. Note that if you're going fast for the sake of throwing tons of blippy arguments out on the flow, your speaks will suffer. Use speed as a tool to make a lot of good arguments, or even bad arguments but ones you spend more than 3 seconds on, and if you don't have a lot of arguments then go slower. I don't need to hear a speech filled with "umm"s and no substantive args.
 * Speed**

So for any of you who know how I was as a debater, I prefer philosophical positions to policy/larp-y stuff. That said, I don't hate listening to that type of case positions, but on balance I do find myself compelled by most responses to utilitarianism.
 * Case Types**

I'm fine with theory, but if I think you're running it as a time suck rather than an actual abuse story it will be much harder to win my ballot, and it'll be pretty easy for your opponent to justify a ballot with a counterinterp. I'm extremely receptive to RVIs, and if you throw out 17 1-sentence responses to RVIs your speaks will be absolutely //tanked// and if your opponent addresses them generally I will give them complete lee-way. If you want to argue against an RVI, give a few well-warranted responses. As per reasonability vs. competing interps, I'm open to be swayed either way in round, but at times I tend to sway more to reasonability (as is evident in that I feel some theory is stupid and used completely as a time suck). Finally, if you find yourself in a theory debate in front of me, __please weigh your standards. Please.__ Theory debates are much easier to resolve when I don't just have 2 random standards floating out their with their own links into fairness and each is probably correct - even if your opponent is winning 3 standards, if you prove that yours is the most important //compared to theirs// it can be an easy ballot for you.
 * Theory**

If there's a util standard set up for the round, please weigh. Weighing makes me happy.
 * Weighing**

Feel free to ask me questions about anything, I won't get angry if you didn't have time to check my paradigm. Though I suppose those who didn't check my paradigm won't see this anyways.