Laufer,+Alex


 * My name is Renée

__For prefs__

I'm a progressive judge. Fine with pretty much everything except oppressive arguments (racism good, etc.). K's are my favorite, followed by theory/T, but I'll listen to and vote off anything. Scroll to the bottom for my contact info if you have questions

the greatest display of hegemony ive ever seen is the climax of pulp fiction

__Background__ I competed in LD for McDowell from 2012-2016. I competed in both traditional and progressive debate. My senior year I won the PA state tournament and qualified to the NFL tournament where I advanced to out rounds. I'm currently studying philosophy, political science, and women's studies

I encourage you to ask your opponent about their preferred pronouns before the round

__Speed__ Fine just flash/email me anything prewritten that you spread. My max comprehension rate is probably around 400-450 words per minute, so keep that in mind for rebuttals and extemped stuff

__Theory/T__ I like theory and T. I default to competing interps, drop the debater, RVI's good, no RVI's on T, theory before K's. Fairness and education are equally valued voters. These are just defaults; I will evaluate theory under whatever paradigm is won. I'm down for creative voters just prove why they're fundamental to debate

I dislike "the opponent is just running theory/T to win" arguments. That's not a valid response to a shell. Besides, if the shell is frivolous, it should be easy to beat back or win off RVI's

"T comes first bc it's outside the judge's jurisdiction to vote on an untopical aff" is a cool arg, but if you say "fuck authority" or something i might buy that

__Plans/CP's/DA's__ I like them. The more creative and thought out the better. Intense policy-esque debates require weighing

__Framework__ Almost all offense links through a framework of some kind so it's pretty important, but you can win by winning stuff that operates independent of a framework (ex. theroy). I'm familiar with a lot of authors and I do enjoy dense philosophical debates

__K's__ I really like critical literature and I'm familiar with a lot of it. I strongly dislike ROB's that are "vote aff/neg" instead of something like "vote for the debater who best deconstructs this oppressive system"

I really like trans rage and wilderson

__Speaks__ Speaker points are a mechanism for judges to punish debaters even if they win the flow, or reward them for good performance in whatever regard. I award speaks based on speaking, strategy, and respectfulness. I typically give around 27-29. If you're funny/sassy or reference pulp fiction you'll get more. I'll disclose speaks if you ask

__Things that are super important that I want to emphasize and if you don't do them you probably won't win:__ -Weigh -Impact

__Nuances in How I Judge__

I just want to put a couple important things here:

-I know voting issues are kinda lame and you don't have to say "voting issues" in your speech but using some time at the end of the 2AR/2NR to quickly go over every reason why I should vote for you will improve the odds of me doing so -I don't take prep time for you to flash/email compiled docs to your opponent -Flex prep is fine
 * -I judge top down; I look to the highest layer of debate first and move down in "priority" from that.** Sort of like looking to the path of least resistance to the ballot. This seems super obvious but I just want to emphasize it. Usually I don't even look at layers below the one off which I vote. That means if you ask me about how I evaluate a lower level than the one I voted off of, you're getting a live and rudimentary evaluation; don't expect me to have considered it

__Misc. Stuff__

-Traditional debate is kinda boring to me; I much prefer to judge progressive rounds. But of course if you're a traditional debater I won't hold anything against you -I don't care if you sit or stand or lay on the ground or whatever, do what makes you comfortable -Offensively worded counter interps require RVI's. I'll still listen to it, but it might affect the nuanced theory/T interaction. You have been warned -Extensions require an impact -I don't care how you dress -I don't flow cx so if you see me writing something during it I'm probably adding details to my flow. But I will remember most questions asked and their answers, so please feel free to reference cx in rebuttals -If you ask me to call for a card then I probably will unless I am certain I know what it says. If I don't know what a card says but it seems important or if I want a closer look I'll call for it anyway -If your opponent is obviously new please have mercy. It doesn't accomplish anything to spread a new person out of the room or read five theory shells against them. That just discourages people from learning and continuing debate. If you're better you shouldn't need to do those things anyway -If you're clearly winning you can end your speech early -Respect your opponent, their space, their shit, and their comfort -I'm expressive; if I nod you probably made a strategic decision or a good argument. If I make a confused face I'm probably confused. My expressions should be self-explanatory

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or even when doing prefs, contact me at alexlaufer@ymail.com or on facebook (I'm much more likely to respond on fb, so long as the school/campus has service)