Byrnes,+Joseph

I debated at Bettendorf High School for 3 years and debated on the LD circuit for 2 years. I don't mind speed and will try to judge on the flow as much as I can. I will need to you be pretty clear if you are going //extremely// fast as my hand writing is terrible but this usually isn't a problem. I'll probably yell clear if it is. I usually don't catch card names so for sign posting try to do it by spacial arrangement instead of names, unless the name of the card is especially clear (like if there is one Foucault card Ill know what you are talking about) or if there aren't very many cards. I need you to be very explicit about signposting. Also, please don't use the abbreviations that you flow with during you speech (like saying PBT instead of plea bargaining for testimony), that really bugs me. As far as conduct in the round, I dislike most of the formalities that go into debate rounds. I won't evaluate how you are dressed or anything like that. I don't care if you sit during cross examination or your speech, if you let a bad word slip, or if you don't make eye contact. I don't like it if you are excessively mean or if you yell at your opponent in cross examination instead of asking questions, but again this is rarely an issue(though it happens, so try not to be an excessive jerk in round). Levity will be greatly appreciated. If you are used to debate where people stand up and make eye contact, I won't be bothered, I just don't require it. I'll do my best not to evaluate an argument with my own views, so you can run just about anything that you want. I'm fine with policy style argumentation and theory, as long as voters are given for them. I refuse to vote on theory that doesn't have a voter unless there is no way for me to avoid doing so, which I have almost never seen happen. If I think an argument is especially ridiculous I will probably be lenient to arguments against it, but I have a pretty high threshold for ridiculousness. By ridiculous, I don't mean just different or critical, just unwarranted and silly. As long as you offer genuine arguments with justifications it won't be an issue. As far as philosophy goes, I will probably be familiar with the argument unless it is really different. If your cards are dense or from some difficult European try to slow down and make sure that you explain it well in cross examination. I tend to have a high threshold for when an argument is actually warranted, unless the argument isn't contested, in which case I have practically none. Finally, I //hate// debates about the value. Avoid even mentioning it unless it is important. Do not spend 10 seconds telling me that justice is more important than morality. I don't like blippy debates but spreads are more than acceptable when done correctly. I will only call a case if I think I made a flowing mistake or if there is controversy about what was said, but I don't want to do so just to use it to evaluate the round over what was said by the debaters. Also, if you call something an independent extension but it's the same argument I won't consider it independent, you need make sure that the arguments are differentiated by your explanation. I'll vote on a speed K or something like that but don't expect me to join your cause, and your going to need to actually win the argument, which in my experience is hard. Please avoid discursive or micropolitical arguments unless you're really serious about them. As far as new arguments go, I don't mind new explanations of what's happening in the round or minor weighing when it really couldn't have been done before but not new responses or truly different explanations in the NR or 2AR. Doing so will dock speaks and won't help you win. I try not to but I tend to give fairly high speaks otherwise... I know this is a little long but it's mostly just details. I don't really have any massive idiosyncrasies so just debate how you are comfortable debating and you'll be fine.