Becker,+Daniel

__ **Note for Creekview 12/3/16: ** __ I haven't judged CX yet on this year's topic, so the acronyms and T will need a little explaining.

__ **If you have non-stock cases that you want to run, this is a chance to run them. ** __

 -LD @ Marcus HS  -Policy @ UT-Dallas -Assistant Coach @ Marcus HS
 * About Me: **


 * Policy arguments: ** If you have them and want to run them, please do! I would very much like to see a solid K/CP/DA/plan debate any round, any time. As with anything, make sure the technical aspect is done well - K's should have an explicit link that gets extended, etc. Just a heads up - I'm most familiar with cap, fear of death, and security kritiks.


 * Speed: ** I can flow fast speeds (8-9 on a scale), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I put my pen down and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Use inflection or a pause after tags/author names so I know where the tag ends and where the card starts.


 * Theory:** I like theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder __provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments__ (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!


 * Speaks:** I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments such as extinction good or oppression good, because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, __this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected__ (micropol, etc).


 * General Preferences:** I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/prestandards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.


 * Kritiks and Micropol:** For kritiks, see Policy Arguments at the top. I don't have much experience with micropol, so run with caution. It should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution).


 * Extensions and Signposting:** Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably shuffle my flows a lot if I'm lost.


 * Plans in LD**: Please run them. As a paradigmatic issue, I think that if the aff runs a plan, the plan can become the resolution for the purpose of evaluating stuff like links to disads/K's. For example, if the aff specs to the US for their plan, disads that apply to another country taking the action of the resolution don't link (__if the aff makes this argument__).

Feel free to ask questions! -Daniel