Gandall,+Kimo

I'm a student at UCI. I am currently undeclared but have a strong preference for political science. I like memes, Donald Trump, MUN, strategy games, and triggering debaters. I've done debate for the majority of my high school career, and I am co-captain of the UCI Debate team. Also, while I flow it, I am beginning to find race baiting tactics to be annoying. White people are not evil. Please, if you're one of these people, get over yourself.
 * Background: **

I flow all arguments. I see framework as important in PF, but it needs warranting. Also, while I understand arguments get dropped in the summary (as PF is designed horribly and should really be more like policy) this does not mean you shouldn't fight to include everything. I do flow drops, so have fun prioritizing.
 * Overview on PF: **

I flow all arguments, and framework needs to be VERY WELL WARRANTED. Do not give me some ranting professor - there should be a clear link back to the root of the philosophy and why as a person / judge I should vote on it.
 * Overview on LD: **

Very similar to PF, I flow all arguments. I see framework as slightly more important than in PF, but, similar to PF, needs warranting. I also understands args tend to get dropped, but deal with it. Neg speaks twice in a row, but needs to flow everything into the next speech, otherwise it's confusing to me who gets access to what.
 * Overview on Parli: **

I flow everything. You can basically ignore everything below. Because policy is so inherently absurd, if the argument that capitalism will lead to the Eraser Warlords from the 5th dimension invading earth gets untouched on the flow, then I guess we're all going to be in the paper mines for the rest of our miserable lives.
 * Overview on Policy: **

Honestly, I will vote this way every time if given the opportunity. Especially if your argument is that electing Trump results in a global nuclear war, or that putting butter on my toast in the morning will open a black hole that will envelop humanity. Give me empirics, give me case examples, give me some proof it exists. I will also happily buy into a Security K if you want to extend a probability analysis against some team that insists that the jellyfish empire will conquer humanity after we build offshore oil drills.
 * Probability: **

You all know the brightline to sane theory. I dislike theory when it's obnoxious, and will only vote on the first 3 shells proposed (do not hand me 10 shells, and expect them to flow). Also be topical. I hate nontopical advocacies. --- > For disclosure theory, I did not disclose cases when I was in high school for good reason (unless asked for the card specifically). Why? Because I worked hard on my research. My cases were always posted afterwards, but the only people who can truly afford to disclose are either the debate Gnomes that spend 24/7 prepping (and then ignore their social life) or rich, affluent schools. Neither of these are just reasons to disclose always. ---> If they ask for a specific card, however, you better give it.
 * Theory: **

I will drop you. Don't do it, it has already infected and destroyed college policy debate, and I intend to be the crusader that fights to the last man to prevent it from becoming such. If you want to talk about fairies, or how oppressed you were because your shower faucet handles were too white, then go do a speech event where the bleedin' hearts of some lay might hand you a trophy.
 * Perform: **

I do take into consideration the quality of the evidence; thus, to an extent, I do value debates on methodology. This is especially true if your predictive statistic gives some sort of massive impact. While I will accept critiques on the institution, I would much rather debaters argue about how the evidence was taken / conducted rather than just brush it aside because a conservative wrote it.
 * Evidence: **

DO IT. Jk, if you go over 425 WPM I probably won't flow it. Also if you speed you better not slur your words like you've just consumed 5 bottles of vodka. People who claim they value 'substance over speed' just don't want to admit they can't flow fast enough. If I'm too slow, I'll just tell you I'm too slow.
 * Speed: **

Sure, why not. But when asked for your alt, it better have some probability analysis (and no, you cannot fiat through the global communist revolution). Also I would prefer if there was some actual policy analysis behind this (you LDers are infamous for your rants about race and gender, but seriously lets be adults and have some real world discourse here). Also, if your only benefit is 'pedagogy' you better have some good evidence that this so-called 'learning' is actually beneficial.
 * The K: **

I'm not your mom or university professor. I will not lecture you on what constitutes a good person (although half of the judges on this website seem to think they should have the power to do so). If your opponent is truly a Nazi, then run some theory. I would love to hear it.
 * Offensive Arguments, aka the scourge of PC: **

This is fine, but only in moderation. If you believe it's abusive, please run some theory. Also, no conditionality arguments in LD. While PF and Policy are predominantly about policies and compromises in policy, LD is is about virtue. And virtue ought to be consistent.
 * Conditionality: **

You should be asking questions about their case, not yelling at each other. However, seeing as I don't flow cross ex, I would love to see a legit verbal gladiator fights.
 * Cross Ex: **

Are for losers. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. Pretty simple.
 * Speaks: **