Min,James

I debated for Montville Township High School for four years. I graduated in 2015.


 * If you are incomprehensible (awful spreading, etc), I will yell clear twice. After that, if you are still incomprehensible, I don't care if you think you're killing it, I will drop you. It's your responsibility to adapt to the judge, and if you can't do that, you actually aren't killing it.***


 * If you're going to read a ton of spikes and then extend one as a reason to win, strike me.**


 * If you like to read stupid theory shells/T shells, strike me. I don't care for pointless theory debates.**


 * I want every round I judge to be one that does not create a hostile environment for either debater. Thus, please don't be racist, sexist, etc. I also find it pretty annoying when a debater decides to read theory, etc to "ensure" a win against a novice who has no idea what's happening. I will destroy your speaker points if you do. If you're debating someone who is clearly much less experienced, don't be a jerk. Be nice. At the end of the day, debate should be a constructive learning experience.*

1) For me, an RVI means that if you win a counter interp through counter standards or turns to their standards you win the round. If you want to say why "I meets" or defense can trigger the RVI, you need to justify it. 2. Keep things slower when you read theory. If I don't get something down on the flow the first time around it'll just make your life harder in later speeches. Read interpretations even slower. 3. Please weigh. 4. If you forget the implication of a shell (drop the debater/arg) I'll just disregard the shell. 5. I'll say it again because it's really important. Keep things slower. 6. Theory spikes are fine but I almost never get down all the nuances of each spike down on my flow; please please please slow down when you read these because if I don't get them on my flow, I tend not to give lots of credence to implications I don't remember hearing in a previous speech.
 * Theory**: If you plan on running theory as a strategic tool then it is a bad idea to pref me. I really didn't read a lot of theory as a debater, and so I am not the most experienced with it. I will try my best to evaluate it as best as I can, but this is a disclaimer: if the theory debate gets messy, you may not be happy with my RFD. That being said, if you're still going to read theory:

I really like well run Kritiks. 1. I don't care if it's a generic K, but I do care if you are running said generic K as a crutch. It'll be reflected in your speaks. 2. Your objective should not be to confuse your opponent. If your opponent is confused, that means I probably am too. Keep things clear, especially if the lit you're reading is dense. If you are super vague in the beginning and then you start make weird implications in the next speech I'll be a bit annoyed. 3. Don't exaggerate your impacts, and know how to explain the impacts. 4. Make specific links when running a K. If you are generic I will be a lot more receptive to no link arguments. 5. Try to make your alt something other than "reject the aff" unless you have some reason as to why stopping the aff actually creates some sort of change.
 * Kritiks:**

I really like these arguments. That being said, please be clear (both the person running rotb and the person challenging) Don't hide behind catch phrases like "debate is a game, so fairness comes first." Explain the arguments, be specific to the round, and show me that you have a good understanding of what the debate entails.
 * ROTJ and ROTB:**

You can go for it if you want, but if your strat is to read a shitton of blippy arguments and hope I'll vote off one of them, don't pref me. :) I contextualize "blippy" as arguments you can spread through in under 10 seconds. If the trick is relatively well developed, then I'll have no problem voting for it.
 * Tricks:**


 * Policy:** Just be clear.If you make it easy to follow, there won't be a problem here.


 * Speaker Points:** I know how hard debate is, so I will start off at either 28.5/28.7, depending on the competitiveness of the tournament. If I feel both debaters worked hard and I learned something, I don't mind giving out high speaks/what you ask for.

Last note: Don't give me attitude if you don't agree with my decision, be courteous and ask OUTSIDE of round. I will drastically lower speaks without hesitation.

Feel free to email with questions: jamesmin95@gmail.com