Geller,+Patty-Jane

I debated for 3 years at Harrison High School in NY, and now attend Georgetown University. I've worked at UNT and NSD for two summers after graduating.

I haven't judged in over a year so you'll have to slow down or I'll have no idea what you're saying. It will only work in your favor. I'll yell clear twice if you're being unclear/too fast. I might also yell louder if I can't hear you. It's the debater's responsibility to make sure the judge can understand what s/he is saying.
 * Most important thing to read:**

I will not vote for theory that says opponent must provide trigger warning or any in-round argument about the need to provide a trigger warning.

I also don't like cases feminism cases - doesn't mean I won't vote for them but I would rather not hear them if you have something else to run.

I never really ran tricks, dense philosophy, excessive theory and all that stuff, so I'd prefer to listen to a good substantive debate. I would love to hear good, nuanced, arguments about the topic with good links to the standard and good weighing. No weighing between competing arguments would make the argument difficult to evaluate. I'd also like to see good comparison between framework debates and how they interact. Long, dense, philosophical frameworks should be clearly explained. That being said, I still understand philosophy, theory etc. since I debated it, so you can still run it in front of me. However, some things I don't like and will give your opponent leeway on are: -Tricky arguments like hidden a prioris. If you want to run an a priori or trick, make it obvious and developed. -Blippy arguments. If I don't catch an argument you said because it was blippy, that's your fault -Divine command theory or any cases about God - religious stuff doesn't belong in a debate context. If your opponent runs Divine Command theory, it would be best to answer it by saying these types of arguments don't belong in debate. I wouldn't vote for an argument that says God doesn't exist or forces the opponent to argue that God doesn't exist.


 * Theory:** Theory is fine as long as there's real abuse. Even though I don't like frivolous theory, I will still evaluate it, but will easily buy "no abuse claims" against it. Having a million theory spikes in a case is confusing for both the judge and opponent. I don't default to competing interps or reasonability; whichever one you tell me you're doing is fine. RVIs are fine.


 * Policy args:** I'm fine with policy arguments, but super specific plans, CPs, and politics DAs need to be very clearly explained. I'm cool with kritiks but I don't understand critical race theory, and the role of the ballot needs to be very clear.


 * Micropolitics:** Even though micropolitical positions are worth hearing, I don't think they have a place in debate because it forces your opponent to combat a serious issue instead of simply discussing it in a non-confrontational setting. If someone runs micropol on you, I suggest you don't concede. If you decide to run micropol, suggesting that your opponent concedes to you is the way to lose with low speaker points. People come into a round expecting to debate and win, and shouldn't feel bad about having to debate a position that involves issues that occur outside the debate round. If you're passionate about something and want to run it as a micropol case, that's fine just be careful about the way you present it. The same thing goes for **narratives.** If someone has an important issue to share, I think that bringing it into a competitive context destroys proper discussion on the story.

I will call evidence for three reasons: 1. You tell me to, 2. I think it's my fault for not flowing well enough, 3. I think it's miscut or power-tagged. However, as a debater it's your job to be clear when reading, and explain the evidence throughout the round.
 * Other important stuff:** I have a high threshold for extensions. They need to be fully warranted in order for me to vote on them, even if they were dropped.


 * Speaks:** Around the 27-30 range - 30 if you were amazing and below 27 if you were super sketch or rude.

Don't cheat. Cheating consists of doing things like giving people the wrong case, making it impossible to scroll on your laptop, or counting up with your timer so that you give yourself an 8 minute NC. I will not buy flash drive theory and am not a fan of disclosure theory.