Tyger,+Paul

 I graduated from (2009) and debated for Strake Jesuit in Houston and now attend the University of Texas. I am currently an assistant coach at Strake. During the summer, I worked at the Victory Briefs Institute.

Issues: 1.) Speed -- I am generally fine with the speed of LD rounds so long as the debaters are clear. I will only yell "clear" once and then, if you're still unclear, will try to flow as much as possible but I'll probably miss important arguments and your speaks will drop a lot. 2.) Theory -- I am willing to vote off of theory if it is won. If you run theory, be sure that your opponent is actually being abusive, or else I'll be holding your opponent to a much lower standard in terms of answering it and probably won't give you the best speaks. 3.) Standards -- I default to the value/criterion model but am willing to vote under a different framework if said framework is justified and won. 4.) Speaks -- I base speaks on the intelligence of your arguments, your strategic awareness, and how you treat your opponent in round. If you make smart arguments and are strategic and polite, then I will give you good speaks. 5.) Paradigm debate -- I am apathetic to this issue. Instead of justifying truth-testing or comparative worldviews, I would prefer that you just run theory against the strategy that is abusive and that the paradigm you are defending would exclude. For example, if your opponent runs a skepticism case, instead of running theory justifying CW, just run theory indicting skepticism.

I will not vote for arguments that I do not understand or that you do not explain well to me or your opponent. If I understand the argument and believe you are winning it, then I will be willing to vote for it.

Long story short: be smart, interesting, nice, and have fun. I like evidence a lot, am fine with speed/theory, and am willing to vote for anything so long as you're winning it.

Also, I'm not familiar with the latest debate jargon, so if you drop the latest terminology just make sure I don't look lost.