Chotalla,+Maanik

**I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK ME.**

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory. I infrequently debated on the national circuit, bidding once

-Go for whatever you want as far as argumentation goes -- I'm open to anything -Have fun -I default to reasonability, no RVIs, and drop the arg but will go with whatever you tell me -I'm good with Ks but please explain your obscure lit to me well, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't -Please extend your arguments I value those greatly -You can spread but you probably shouldn't go your absolute max speed because it'll hurt my brain, go about 90% is my recommendation (Unless you don't spread all that fast, use your judgement) -Don't take this too seriously, I like to have a good laugh -Email chain me: mchotall@asu.edu also feel free to contact me there if you have any questions
 * Crash Course version:**

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty and personable usually score higher on speaker points with me but don't feel pressured to do so. **I'll vote on anything** (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, but there is no reason to make the round inaccessible to one debater over another. What that means is if you happen to hit a novice and you spread through 4 offs when you clearly didn't need to, I'm going to tank your speaks and leave a very angry face on your ballot >:(

**I like framework debate a lot**. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them to a five-year-old (i.e. me).

**Be persuasive**. I did oratory primarily my senior year and made sems at nationals, so I know a thing or two about sounding good while speaking. People don't naturally talk like they're spewing things through a blender. This doesn't mean that I'm against you spreading evidence or arguments, it just means **slowing down on impacts** and **explaining which arguments are the most critical** **__WILL HELP YOU IN THE__ __ROUND!__** It tells me what I should really be paying attention to and it also lets you set the terms for the debate. I'm still going to vote by the flow and won't vote for you just because you're more persuasive, but it never hurts. On the topic of speaking, please **slow for tags and authors**, I'm not a GENETIC FREAK (See: [|This short video] for the reference and to enlighten you on the pinnacle of humor) who is capable of flowing 500 words a minute, and I most definitely will miss you saying your impacts and tags if you spread through them. Finally, for both of our sakes, please **IMPACT to a weighing mechanism**. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you persuade me that it's the more important one.

Lastly, and I didn't realize this was a point of contention, but I seem to have a relatively high threshold for **extensions**. If it isn't extended in the round, it isn't something I'm voting on. Sorry if that wasn't made clear earlier. What constitutes an extension means extending the **claim and warrant** of your argument but if you don't think you have that time at the very least I need the claim to evaluate it in later speeches. If that's a problem, feel free to strike me.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. Theory debates are usually very boring for me to watch which is why I say this. I default to reasonability and tend to be partial to RVI arguments but again will go with what you tell me. In general I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Topicality is another can of worms. I think T is a really cool strategy and I'm far more receptive to a T shell than I am to most other shells. I find a well-argued T shell is much easier to follow than a different theory shell. Run them as you see fit.

Shells I will likely not vote on: -Must have at least one theory violation -Dress Code theory -This list will grow with the more outlandish arguments that I hear

3. Tricks

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate. If you extend a trick and try to win off of it, I'll vote for it if I'm in the mood but I will almost certainly tank your speaker points. That's not to say that you can't run any theory spikes, I just don't want to hear any stupid ones. What constitutes stupid is entirely up to my discretion, so run them at your own risk.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">4. Ks

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really liking them as an argument. If you run a K **for the love of God label each section.** I wasn't a K debater so it is often times very hard for me to know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. I don't think its too much to ask that you have each section labeled so I can follow it easily. The biggest problem I usually have with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. This can be down however you want but to me is most easily accessible as a Role of the Ballot or ROTJ, so it may behoove you to access it that way.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">5. Miscellaneous

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don't time flashing during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain but don't expect me to follow along during the round. This is mostly for your sake because I find that I get distracted while reading and don't pay attention to the arguments you make, I just take it in case I miss something. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time up there and not doing it to fulfill an ego or anything else like that.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">6. Fun

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you make a reference to Death Grips and do your best MC Ride impression that's a guaranteed bump of at least 2 speaker points. If it is a bad impression it'll pain my kidney so make sure it's a good one. I love obscure and dumb humor so if you want to show me a meme or anything dumb before or after the round depending on if I laugh at it or not I will also potentially bump your speaks, but don't be a normie. Telling me your answer to the question, "Giraffes, too tall?" is a guaranteed bump of half a speaker point (one time only) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**If you're looking at this through Cynthia Tran 1. Sorry, 2. Hello, 3. Don't ask her about Death Grips or the intellectual stuff at the end**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you have any more questions feel free to ask before the round or contact via email (see above)