Otting,+Joie

I debated all four years, primarily LD. I've debated at a local and national level. I also have experience in world schools, PF, congress, and big questions, and very limited experience in policy. I'm currently a first year studying philosophy and psychology at Agnes Scott College in Atlanta.

If you say that one of your opponent's arguments is Illuminati propaganda I will immediately drop it. (kidding but I would think it's really funny and you should do it. it has to be well executed though)

IF YOU READ 3 OR MORE OFF CASES IN THE 1N (INCLUDING AN NC, theory, ks, disads, e t c) I WILL GIVE THE AFF SO MUCH LEEWAY ON RESPONSES IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY. IF YOU'RE GONNA READ MULTIPLE OFFS IN FRONT OF ME YOU BETTER HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON.

Unfairness and power imbalances are inherent in debate. If you do something to exacerbate those power imbalances, I will not want to vote for you.

I will do my best to evaluate the round based on how you tell me to evaluate it. I can't believe I have to say this, but I need some sort of standard or burden structure to evaluate the round, and __**I need you to weigh**__. If both sides have offense but there hasn't been any clear weighing or layering, I'm probably just going to vote on whatever I think is true, or some other arbitrary standard. If you don't want me to vote based on my own biases, give me a frickin' standard and WEIGH.

I would rather you have one really good, well developed argument than five blippy, poorly explained arguments. Quality over quantity, always.

I focused on performance my senior year, but I have some background in virtually every style. I'm not into policy-style arguments. This is LD. Other than that I don't really have any strong argument preferences. __**You just need to be able to clearly explain whatever argument you're making**__ - don't assume I'm familiar with the source material. Don't make things intentionally confusing just to make it difficult for your opponent to respond; that isn't productive or fair. __Don't pick on small schools__. Don't say anything blatantly offensive. I'm very expressive, so look up at me from time to time. I'll stop flowing if I don't understand what you're saying.

Stolen from Martin Sigalow: If you refer to yourself as "we" or "our," I will assume that you mean yourself as well as Jonas. (This is not a good thing).


 * Speed**: you can spread, but you're gonna want to __slow down a little bit__ for me, especially for tags and impacts. I don't really know how to quantify my speed tolerance, but I'll say slow (once) and/or stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I say slow and you don't slow down I will probably miss something important and not evaluate the round how you want me to.


 * Theory**: if the other person is being blatantly unfair or diminishing the educational value of debate, I'll be very easily persuaded by theory. If you're using it for strategic purposes, I'll definitely still listen and be open to voting on it, but I'll give you a lot less leeway. Education and fairness are actually really important to me - education is the purpose of debate, unfairness is why people quit. I think theory debates often break down into education vs. fairness, and I would rather see the debate happen at that level than the standards level.


 * Ks/Pomo**: I like philosophy but I'll be real: I think postmodernism is kinda bs. That being said, I'll listen to your Deleuze k, you're just gonna need to explain it. I'll be much more open to voting for Ks focusing on material reality: race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Those were the types of positions I liked to run and I'm much more familiar with the material. I love performance debate. Subverting the standard way we do things in debate is always a great thing.


 * Framework/Philosophy**: I have background in common frameworks and philosophical theories, but please slow down a little bit while you're explaining your framework, especially the implications. I don't like spikes and am 100% okay with negs responding to them in the 2n if they're extended with new implications/implications that weren't clear to me when they were read.


 * Plans/CPs/Disads**: I don't like policy-style positions. This is LD. I will be especially sad if your plan is hyper-specific to the point where the neg has no ground, or if your CP changes something really small for a marginal benefit. If the disad is ridiculous, I'll give the aff a lot of leeway in terms of responses. The likelihood of me voting on an extinction impact is extremely low.


 * PF**: I like unique, well-reasoned arguments. Don't turn it into an LD round just because I have background in LD. PF IS NOT LD.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before round or email me: ottingjo@gmail.com. Also if you read this and add me to the email chain without having to ask for my email (since it's right here) that will put me in a good mood.