Sharp,+Morven

__**Background:**__ I debated for around four years with Arcadia High School on national and local circuits. I attended debate camp for three summers and qualified to NSDA Nationals two times. I'm now a sophomore at American University.

__**General:**__ When I debated I was pretty fond of spreading but I must admit I was not very good at flowing it. I benefitted greatly from flashing evidence and reading over shoulders, and I would greatly appreciate if I could get a copy of the speech doc. Still, if you want me to hear something, please **emphasize** it. I don't mind if your pace is rapid but you must have a variation in tone and must be loud enough. I will say clear if I need to but I would prefer if I didn't. I am not the best at flowing a blizzard of quick analytics so it would help if you number your arguments. The more messy my flow is, the harder it is for me to evaluate the round. If you want me to vote on something, **emphasize** it. I must admit that I have been pretty detached from this activity and haven't seen a fast LD round in over 2 years. Please be patient with me as I won't be familiar with current LD norms and will probably need more explanation than your average judge will. Weigh your arguments, meaning be comparative with your opponents arguments. Try to put offense on as many layers of the flow as you can. I want to do as little work as a judge as possible. If you force me to intervene, you will probably be unhappy with my decision.

__**DA/CP/Case:**__ I am probably more comfortable evaluating policy style cases than I am for dense philosophical frameworks. I really enjoyed reading extinction scenarios when I debated, but I won't hold anything against if you read dense philosophy. I always thought it was bullshit when a judge said s/he didn't like some aspect of debate so I wouldn't get to read stuff I prepped. Just remember that I may not be as familiar with some obtuse philosophical stuff as some judges and will need extra or more simple explanation.

__**Kritiks:**__ This was probably my favorite part of debate, but don't assume I'm well-versed in the literature or will accept a shitty alt because I'm probably not and I definitely won't. I like topical Ks but I'm willing to listen to non-topical Ks as long as they're justified well. Same thing goes for performance affs and stuff; just justify it well.

__**Theory:**__ I was seriously bad at theory debate as a debater and as a judge I've only gotten worse. This doesn't mean don't read theory, just treat me as a judge that is bad at understanding and evaluating it. I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, drop the debater, and yes on RVIs. I would like to see an explicit counter-interp and I would like you to slow down and emphasize it.

Be nice to each other and be nice to me. On speaks, I average a 28 and will generously add points if you are awesome and will also not hesitate to nuke your speaks if you are an asshole. Morally repugnant arguments will give you a loss and bad speaks, and tricks will give you bad speaks. Overall, debate is a really fun activity and best of luck!
 * __Conclusion:__**