Day,+Cara

I debated for St. Agnes Academy in Houston, Texas for 3 years- 2 in PF and 1 in LD, qualifying for TFA state all 3 years. I attended multiple round robins and the TOC in PF, and in LD, I competed on both the local and nat circuits, breaking at multiple tournaments on both. I coach for Strake Jesuit College Prep, and I've taught at VBI. -I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, I think it becomes 100% true in the round. *Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc. Making arguments that impact turn any type of oppression will get you an L20. -WEIGH!!!! Please do weighing. Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. aka it makes me do work which I don't want to do. -Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you click send on the email. -Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on, or I get confused. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you don’t I will be sad, and when you see your speaks, you will also, likely, be sad. -I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am, so go back and explain. I average around a 28. I'm a speaks fairy in bubble rounds, usually. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: be funny, speak clearly, make CX interesting. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me. I give speaks more on strategy than on actual speaking skills, especially in LD. I much prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. Please don't give me a "summary of the round" in any of your speeches. That literally means nothing to me. I am of the opinion that you don't need to extend terminal defense in summary and final focus. You can point it out as a voter, but you don't need to extend it in every speech. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech. In 2nd Rebuttal, you should allocate time to responding to arguments put on your case and making extensions. Final Focus should still be line-by-line, I hate big picture debates. Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. You get a 1:30 grace period to find your PDF (yes, I will be timing you), and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round. This may seem harsh but I really can't stand lengthy evidence exchanges. (hint: to save me, yourself, and your opponents time, flash or email all of us a cut version of your case). Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available. Please flash or start an email chain. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest) <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Ideal FWs: 3 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Theory/T: 2 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Tricks: 2 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">K: 3 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Non-T Affs: 5 <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I think that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs. I think DA turns the AC args are some of my favorite to vote on. Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I typically default to truth testing over comparative worlds. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">FW: I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author, but just make sure you explain to me more clearly what they argue. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Theory/T: I tend to default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I also love hearing drop the arg> drop the debater arguments and will definitely go for them if well-warranted. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">NOTE: I prefer substance to theory but will still evaluate it as the highest layer of the debate. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">If you at any point in the debate believe that they have no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still routes left I will give you a L20. Yes, this is somewhat subjective. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me! <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round and talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there. <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly! I know y'all work super hard, and I look forward to seeing you debate.
 * __<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">TL;DR __**
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Speed:Go as fast as you want- I can pretty much catch most things. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing and drop your speaks. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to EXTEND!! Rounds with no offense are horrible to judge.
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">- **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">If you really want me to listen, make it interesting. Sass is appreciated, but don't cross the line into being mean. I don't flow CX, and I don't listen super diligently either. I'm fine with flex prep.
 * __<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Speaks __**
 * __<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">For PF: __**
 * __<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">For LD: __**
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">DISCLOSE! **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"> If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, you better have disclosed. If your opponent reads disclosure theory, and they're right, I don't think there is much you can do to effectively answer it.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Or FB message me with questions
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Email **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">: cara.day@utexas.edu