Schrick,+Noah

Noah Schrick Experience: 5 years of high school debate at Tulsa-Union (OK), volunteer for UDL in Tulsa. Email: nschrick98@gmail.com

Game-playing.
 * Paradigm –**

No objection to these. I think these can be some of the most developed and strategic affs. That being said, shady or loose internal links is a pretty easy way for me to vote neg on presump.
 * Policy/Traditional Affs –**

All for it. 5 minutes of T in the 2NR is a very valid strat. If you do go for T, be sure to impact your standards out. In addition, don't just make blanket, generic impact claims such as, "this is bad for education." I think that education and fairness are impacts, but also internal links to external issues. Why is education important? Why should we care about fairness? Be sure to explain these. Refer to speed section.
 * Topicality –**

Also all for it. I’ll vote for any theory argument as long as you can fully explain why I should vote for it. Granted, I'll have a higher threshold for a crazy, off the wall arg, however I will still vote for it if it is explained well enough and impacted out. I default to reject the arg unless there is substantial work done to explain why I should go otherwise, or there is a prejudice made by a team that is interfering with the debate. Refer to speed section.
 * Theory –**

Will gladly vote on it. I do think RoBs are arbitrary. Both teams usually present them in a way to exclude the other. Majority of the time, no real clash occurs from these. Refer to speed section.
 * Framework –**

Go for it. Would prefer it was germane to the topic, however. Disclaimer: I am not completely up-to-date with identity args and authors. That being said, I have no issues with these. Just make sure that rather than spitting author names at me, or identity jargon, explain it to me. I'm not lay and I'm not completely clueless on identity, but do explain the world of the aff and explain what the args mean. You can usually tell if I'm following based off my facial expressions.
 * K Affs/Non-Traditional –**

All CPs are fine. With that in mind, if you read a rider, delay, or any other counterplan along those lines, be ready to defend theory since I'll have a higher threshold. CPs must also be competitive and have a net benefit. It will take a lot of work to convince me to vote for a CP just because it has good solvency with no additional benefits. Aff: if you read theory on a CP, be sure to explain why the CP in question is bad, not just the //type// of CP.
 * CP –**

Specifics over generic. I will vote for generic DA’s/links, but it will be much easier to sway me to //not// vote for them if it is generic.
 * DA –**

Reading the same K shell every round won’t cut it. Whether you have cards specific for the aff case or not, you need to apply the K in terms of the aff. If you can read back 1AC/2AC cards or quotes and link it back to the K, it will go a long way for your link analysis. I //really// don’t like to vote on link of omissions, but I will if you can convince me why I should. Expect to put in time to convince me to vote on those; a couple sentences won’t get the job done. Don’t just repeat alt taglines at me, contextualize it in terms of the aff/round/world/whatever. Refer to K aff section in regards to identity.
 * K –**

Don’t shotgun theory/t/fw args. If you read 5 blippy analytical arguments that you believe are all key reasons why I should vote for your args, but you read them all in rapid succession without stopping for a breath **and** you still expect me to catch and flow every single one, I won’t. If I don’t catch it, I won’t flow it. Clarity comes before speed. Taglines should be presented with a change in pitch or volume. Debaters tend to spread paragraphs of analytical args and expect me to flow every word. If you do have these paragraphs, slow down a tad so that I can write it. You don't need to talk in a normal speaking voice, but at least slow down a little. That being said, I am okay with speed, despite what you might interpret from that. Don’t be afraid to read quickly in front of me. If you think you could flow it, then I will probably be able to as well.
 * Speed –**

-Prep ends when the drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent. -Don’t clip cards. This should be obvious and applies to every round. -If you’re kicking an advocacy such as a CP or an alt, be sure to say so. -If there’s an email chain, go ahead and put me in it. -Cross-Ex: Be aggressive, not rude. Yes, there’s a difference. -Don’t mock or be distracting during someone else’s speech. I will dock speaker points if I deem it necessary.
 * Misc-**

30: Probably the best speaker at the tournament 29.5+: Getting a speaker award 29+: Has a few mistakes, but is still a fantastic speaker 28.5+: More mistakes, but still above average 28+: About average, could’ve handled some things differently or improved on speaking quality 27.5+: Many mistakes 27+: Many larger mistakes 26: Made huge errors that affected the outcome of my decision Below a 26: Behavior, actions, or words that are harmful or hateful towards a people or a person directly. Also given for those that don’t fully participate.
 * Speaker points –**