Preston+Katherine

I did LD in high school, graduated in 2005, and went on to dabble in policy and parli–I have been a regional judge in the PacNW (when I lived in Oregon) and in California. I keep a very tight flow and I listen for the warrants in your evidence. Go as fast as you want but SLOW and CLEAR on tags and authors…anything you want written down word-for-word, you need to say slowly and clearly. I don’t really place much emphasis on the standard: it should function as a d-rule for prioritizing impacts, but in my mind shouldn’t be a one and done tautological justification for the ballot in and of itself. I do not believe you can make a good argument in one sentence–if you’re extending a spike, you better also be extending a warrant for whatever that spike asserts. Theory is fine, but not made up LD theory that calls “affirming non-holistically” by the name “conditionality”. If you borrow from policy, do it right. Standards and voting issues that clearly explain why your interpretation of what should be happening is better than what IS happening, and how it relates to my ballot. I'm not persuaded by "jurisdiction" or "the rules say so" voters. I love kritiks. Favorites are (post)structuralist, feminist, identity politics, poco, etc. (Foucault or Butler is always a winner in front of me. Love it.) I am ambivalent about: Nietzsche and Heidegger, any card that uses the word “other” (in any state of capitalization) more than 3 times. I vehemently dislike: Zizek and Rand. I think that in order to win a kritik you MUST win that your alternative can (at least partially) solve the link. Otherwise your argument is probably non-unique, and though still winnable as a linear argument, packs way less of a punch. I also like counter-intuitive arguments with well-reasoned justifications (for example, spark or de-dev). And performative frameworks that are well-executed. I know a lot about the world because I’m a news junkie. This means I will listen to your factual claims about what’s happening in Sudan or the Congo or what have you, and if you are misrepresenting reality I reserve the right to tank your speaks. I don’t think it is asking too much for me to expect that you have at least googled or read a newspaper if you’re going to wax poetic about the horrors of the status quo. I like to be entertained. I am a good judge to break a new or interesting argument in front of. If you epically fail in the round, expect speaks in the range of 24-26. Average debaters usually get 26-27.5. 28 or higher means you were doing something right. And no, I do not care if you stand up, sit down, read at the speed of light from a laptop, flow in crayon, or anything. I could care less about your stylistic choices. I will be listening to what you say and how well you say it. Any questions, ask me. If you’re shy, ask: npte-style parli debaters, South Eugene debaters or coaches, or people from Southern California.

For policy: Same basic principles. I'm flexible on frameworks, and will do what you tell me, defaulting to net-benefits in the absense of a framework debate. I love disad/counterplan debates (especially politics + a theoretically questionable counterplan) and I love K debates. Make sure your alt solves. I have an average-low threshold on T, and a higher than average threshold on CP and other theory. If anything, I tend to reject the argument, not the team. I like critical debates about T a lot. A good rebuttal is the best way to win me over--explain the way arguments relate to each other, which ones come first, why this one is more important than that one, etc. I do not care about tag-team cx.