Avery,+Marcus

Hey, I’m Marcus Avery. I’m currently a freshman at the University of Washington. I debated policy for three years at Lake Oswego High School. I did some nat circ stuff and did alright. I like dogs and I don’t know a ton about the topic. My email is marcus.avery@gmail.com – please put me on the email chain! Basic things: - Read what you want - Don’t be a jerk or racist sexist homophobic transphobic etc. - I’m fine with speed - Clarity and efficiency is great - I make facial expressions - Link work and impact calc is good - I’m not gonna look at the docs much during the round - I love technical debates - Clash is good, so is flowing - Quality ev> Quantity ev

Speaks: If you’re not flowing I’ll probably take some points off your speaks <26 = you done goofed/ were probably a terrible person 26-27.5 = Not a great round, big mistakes were made 27.6-28.4 = okay 28.5 = pretty much what I’d expect outta y’all, nothing stellar but doin solidly 28.6-29.0 = above average, solid choices on the flow, good speaker, good technically etc. 29.1-29.5 = doing really well, definitely should be in elims 29.6-30 = Damn.

The Speeches: I don’t flow cross. If you want it on the flow put it in the speech. Sometimes I’ll write stuff from cross, but not very often. I love clean 2ac’s. 2nr and 2ar should paint my ballot, otherwise I’ll be forced to resolve it my way whatever that looks like. Speech times are a thing. Follow them. A couple seconds over is fine to finish your sentence, but besides please adhere to them.

Planless Affs: I read some planless aff stuff senior year such as baudrillard and levinas. K affs are solid, if you want to read it read it. Performances are chill. Remember, you do you. It’s your debate, I’m just here to judge it.

K’s: I mostly read K’s during senior year. I read a lot of psychoanalysis, but I’m familiar with things like afropess, weheliye, baudrillard, bataille, levinas, and the basic K stuff. I won’t kick the alt for you. If you want me to kick the alt ask me to do it. Links are solid, make them clear. Root cause claims aren’t links. K tricks are solid, I won’t automatically vote for them though. Explain the argument that your K is making, and explain the philosophy stuff too. Don’t go all buzzwordy on me. I’m fine with long overviews, just make sure they’re good. The more confusing your kritik is, the slower your spreading should probably be. It’s hard to get DnG at 1000 mph

DA’s: Disads are dope. Read them. They’re fun to watch. Explain the disad and it will make me happy. Explain how it interacts with the aff. Clash is good. I don’t know a lot of the topic stuff, so keep that in mind.

CP’s: These are also dope. Odds are if you spread through your 20 plank counterplan at top speed I’m not going to get all of it. Slowing down is good so that I can flow it. Otherwise God knows what it will be. Explain what the cp does, and explain why it is competitive.

T: I don’t know all the t violations for this year. Explain it, keep it clean, you can’t spread this at top speed. I don’t want this flow to become a wash, which T debates often become. The cleaner this flow is, the more likely I am to want to vote on it. Otherwise, I’m just gonna be sitting here wondering what the heck happened. Otherwise, T is solid. Just do a good job.

Fwk: It’s a thing. Keep the flow clean, explain why you win the flow. I’ll vote on it, but I’ll also vote on k affs! Don’t read it in a hella exclusionary way.

Theory: Yo, theory matters. I’ll vote on theory. Debate it cleanly, and if you want me to vote on it put it in the 2nr/2ar. It might not always win the round, but it might be a reason for me to discount a certain argument or something.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: HAVE FUN!