Ruff,+Sophie


 * New, as of 10/14/15 for Bronx RR:**
 * I haven't judged a debate round since Harvard 2013, so I don't know the trends, probably can't follow your top speed, and everything below may or may not be irrelevant, but I'll leave it in case you feel like reading it.**

I debated LD for Hendrick Hudson High School in Montrose, NY for three years, graduating in 2011. I am now an assistant coach for West Des Moines Valley HS.


 * General**

I will try to judge based on what debaters do in round, rather than on my own opinions. But, I do have some preferences that will affect your speaks and, inevitably to some degree, my evaluation.

I won’t disregard impacts based on an arbitrarily narrow standard, such as a “minimizing war” standard that is just justified through util. Also, you can’t drop spikes and then respond in the next speech, but you can respond to the way the spike interacts with your case. This also goes for theory interps in the AC. Lastly, I will not default to presuming for one side in particular – if there is no presumption argument in the round and I find myself with a truly irresolvable round, I will vote for whoever I feel did a better job, as this seems less arbitrary to me than automatically presuming aff or neg.


 * Theory**

I suppose I default to competing interpretations in the sense that I will compare offense and defense on the theory debate to evaluate it, but I do not really have any strong feelings about this. If you are running reasonability, though, you need to have a standard for what it is to be reasonable, not just assert that I should gutcheck on theory.


 * New: 1) Due to the proliferation of generic theory spikes in ACs such as "CX checks meets all theory interps" and "aff always gets an RVI", know that speaks will suffer if you rely on these to win the theory debate and do not do a good job of addressing the specific abuse story. 2) I will give the neg leeway on these spikes, meaning that if I'm not sure if their 3 responses really answer back your 1 sentence assertion, I'm going to ignore your spike. 3) I think I should raise my threshold for voting on RVIs, since it seems to happen in almost every theory debate. So, just know that you might have to work a little harder to win an RVI now, especially if you are going for an RVI on an I-meet.**


 * Kritiks**

I don’t think I will be the best judge for a K debate. I am not familiar with the literature, and I often find them flawed. Additionally, I find that many K impacts do not link to a justified framework, and I will not vote for those arguments. Lastly, I find pre-fiat or micropolitical voters uncompelling.


 * New: People don't really like to take this part of my paradigm seriously. Just don't run Ks in front of me. Your speaks will suffer.**


 * Speaks and Stuff**

If I think you should clear based on your performance in this round, you will get a 28.5 or higher. These are based on your strategy, argument quality, and technical skills as well as your actual speaking skills. In terms of in-round behavior, I would prefer that you have real cross ex (not just prep the whole time), but you can stand or sit to do this. Asking questions in prep time is of course fine. Try not to be mean to your opponent, and if you are way better than your opponent, please don’t beat them down – make it an educational and enjoyable experience for them. I do not mind if you sit during speeches. I am happy to call clear if I cannot understand you and I am willing to call for things after the round.

Good luck and feel free to ask me questions before or after the round!