Moon,+David

Short Version: Read anything you want. I like literally anything if it is run well, and don't be offensive or I will not only tank your speaks but also drop you.

Long Version: I debated for four years at Collegiate School in New York and qualified to the ToC in my senior year (2017). From November-December on, I affirmed almost exclusively with what I thought were creative and critical engagements with the topic, but judging by most 1Ns, what a lot of people would consider non-T AFFs. However, my 1Ns even in senior year included everything from Wilderson to external world skep to the NSDA **(AND!!!)** TFA Rules shells, and I was a tricks debater before senior year so please believe me when I say that I am willing to evaluate anything. I still have some prejudices though, just like any other judge. I was coached by Elijah Smith, Tillman Huett-Lassman, Tom Evnen, Devane Murphy and Phoebe Kuo during my days of serious competition if it means anything to you. I went to CDI after freshman year, then NSD before junior and senior years, in addition to TDC before senior year.
 * Who am I?**
 * Miscellaneous Things:**
 * **I qualled by begging for two 30s in a row at Harvard. For this reason, if you come up with a half-decent reason for me to give you good speaks and/or make me laugh, it will make you happy with your speaks. Otherwise, I tend to give pretty low speaks.**
 * **If you say "we" in an LD round, I will split speaks between you and your presumed partner**
 * One thing I will not do is vote off of arguments I do not understand. If you are super unclear while speaking, I will shout "clear" as many times as is necessary without docking speaks, so if I am shouting "clear" for your whole speech and you do not adapt, it is your fault if I don't have that argument on the flow and I will not be afraid to tell you at the end of the round, "you were super unclear, I don't have the args you were going for flowed so I voted for your opponent."
 * I understand that you never want to go too easy on somebody and lose the round, but at the same time, if you know that you're debating somebody either new to the activity or very unfamiliar with your style of argumentation, then please do your best to make the round an educational experience for both of you. Especially while negating, if you hear them reading a lay case at lay speed and you spread through skep and 3 shells, you **WILL NOT** be happy with your speaks.
 * I had bad experiences with having my prep stolen after flashing, so if you don't want to flash or email chain, I won't make you do so as long as you let your opponent flow over your shoulder. This rule doesn't apply to camp tournaments, though.
 * ** WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. WEIGH. ** I cannot stress how important this is; if you don't weigh then I can't make a decision if you guys both are extending offense and I will be forced to intervene, which makes me sad. I do not care what kind of weighing you make; there is no layer of the debate which will not both require weighing and be clarified by weighing. **WEIGH. Post Yale:** If a debate comes down to conflicting pieces of unweighed offense, I generally choose the piece(s) of offense with the least ink next to it/them, regardless of size of impact, probability, etc.
 * I gave a lot of hard 1ARs, so I understand that you're often time-crunched. If case is conceded, "extend case" is fine for me, but you still need to weigh and explain impacts. You also NEED to at least say extend case, or I can't vote on it.
 * If you read a priori(s), I will vote on them, but you need to read framing that makes them matter like truth-testing.
 * I won't intervene if you read contradicting positions but you **WILL NOT** like your speaks if you do something like read Wilderson w/50 States unconditionally or something similar that demonstrates you have not really read your literature.
 * I **WILL NOT** vote on floating "independent voting issues". If it doesn't link to a framework of some sort, I **will not** **vote on it** unless it is something wildly offensive, i.e. a slur.
 * I find that if you read a kritik and very clearly are not familiar with the literature base **ESPECIALLY WITH AFRO-PESSIMISM** with bad links, you will likely lose with bad speaks.
 * If you read a kritik and cannot clearly articulate/extend a link, I will not vote on it.
 * Speaker Points: **
 * I'll try to average a 28; the scale will look something like this and is based on your in-round performance; adjusted for non-national circuit debaters on a case-by-case basis:
 * 30: You could clear at ToC.
 * 1) 29-29.5: You have a good shot at qualifying to ToC OR you've been good relative to my other rounds that day.
 * 2) 28.5: You'll have a good shot at clearing at an average circuit tournament.
 * 28: You'll probably clear a couple times at circuit tournaments.
 * 27: You probably won't clear; maybe you'll break even.
 * 25: You did something offensive or are literally the worst debater I've ever seen (you are so bad that it's offensive).
 * 0: You made an argument offensive to the degree of an impact turn on racism or genocide.
 * Make the round fun - make jokes, puns, rap, do whatever you can to make me laugh and I guarantee your speaks will be high.
 * Make quality anime references and you'll be rewarded.
 * If you win the round reading Roko's Basilisk against a circuit debater on either AFF or NEG you will get no lower than a 29.5.
 * Winning with a **good** critical and creative engagement with the topic and beating T will guarantee a 29+.
 * Defaults/Opinions:**
 * **Substance:** If both of you concede terminal defense on your framework, I will evaluate the round through epistemic modesty, which means I'll way strength of link times strength of impact under each framework. However, I will evaluate presumption arguments before I go to EM, so if you feel like they're a path to the ballot, feel free to make them. I default comparative worlds, but can be persuaded to use truth testing.
 * **Framework:** I never understood framework and probably lost 90% of the time to excellent framework debaters. As a result, I'll be best at evaluating consequentialist debates. However, I think framework can be really cool, and if you explain it to me and win it, I have a ton of respect for you; just make sure I understand it. If you read some crazy stuff about OOO though and blip through it, I won't have any problem acknowledging that I don't understand it, and won't vote off of it.
 * **Turns:** If it is not a turn, do not read it as a turn. Doing so will make me angry and make me dock your speaker points.
 * **Skep/Permissibility/Presumption Triggers:** Go for 'em, dawg. Just make sure the implication is made in the first speech otherwise I'll grant 2N responses.
 * **Theory:** Competing interps, drop debater, no RVIs. "Gut checks" just beg the question, so any interp is fair game. These are not hard and fast, so feel free to argue for the opposite and I'll be more than willing to listen. I really think that people don't go for reasonability with a good brightline enough. For spikes, same rule applies as for skep/presumption triggers. I will make internal links from standards to voters in the case that abuse is clear/conceded, but otherwise give me something.
 * **K vs Theory:** I was usually on the K side of things, but I still don't think that fairness unequivocally outweighs the K or vice versa. If you can make specific reasons why your shell or your K should come first, then (despite the fact that I wasn't great at these arguments) I will be very impressed.
 * Influences/Coaches:**