Morris,+Tyler

I debated three years at The Bronx High School of Science winning The Newark Invitational my senior year. I currently attend Duke University.


 * Speed-** I was never super good at flowing so be wary that if you go top speed I may not be able to catch something you said. Slow down especially if you are reading short analytics and for author names and tag lines. Also you should slow down if reading cards with warrants such as dense meta-ethics, thought experiments, or logic because I will probably not understand what you are talking about if you are yelling them at me at 300 words per minute. I will say clear once but after that if I miss something.....sucks to suck.


 * Framework**- Really enjoy good framework debates and strategic arguments made at this level of the debate will earn you higher speaker points. There should be some standard whether it be a criterion or some other thing for which impacts can be evaluated in the round. If you want me to do something else with my ballot then there needs to be clear justification for what the role of the ballot is and how one can link to the ballot. I am fairly familiar with most ethical frameworks but need a good explanation on how one justification relates to others.


 * Theory**- Default reasonability, RVI's good, and would prefer if the theory is in shell formant. Wont ignore theory even if you forget to extend the interpretation but are winning every other part of the shell. Make sure to weigh between different standards otherwise I will just wash the theory debate or vote on what I believe in.


 * Policy-** Sometimes ran these arguments in are is familiar with the lingo but if you decide to name some obscure perm, don't assume im going to know what you are talking about without an explanation. I also think its devastating when plans have weak frameworks that the negative can spend a large amount of time on render the affs impacts useless so I wont lean AFF on those types of framework arguments.


 * Kritiks**- My favorite arguments in debate and running well developed ones will earn you high speaks. If you are going to run one of these you better understand what you are reading and if you don't your opponent and I will laugh at you in cx. Make sure you have a clear alternative and that your impacts link back to some framework. Pre fiat frameworks are fine if justified.

Random Stuff -You better be able to explain any warrant that relies on physics or mathematics, so if you cant tell me what a Multiverse is or what the Omega Point looks like, I wont vote on it - Sympathetic to practical response to arguments like skepticism and determinism such as if those theories are true, i have no obligation to pick up the better debater -Making me laugh will earn you higher speaks and so will pointing out stupid arguments - Will vote on anything as long as it is warranted

PLEASE HAVE A PERSONALITY IN ROUND, THIS IS WHAT WINS ROUNDS AND GETS YOU HIGH SPEAKER POINTS. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round.