Graca,+Anthony

October 2nd, 2014 Gabrielino High School '13 Affiliation: Gabrielino High School, CA

I debated for 3 years in high school. I am aware of the general procedures of Policy Debate but I don't follow it too closely now that I am occupied with finishing up my degree. That means, I don't really have a preference in regards to what argument you decide to run. If something is abusive or squirrely, it is up to the opposing team to tell me what I should do with the argument.
 * Background:**


 * In General:**
 * **Speed:** I'm generally good with speed. I do request that you clearly indicate when you are transitioning to a new card and slow down a bit for tags. If you are good, you won't need to blaze through your very last rebuttal speech. If you are running Topicality, you can blaze through that argument because most T blocks are fairly cookie-cutter. If you are running any other Theory or Framework argument, slow down so I can get everything. If you are running a Kritik, slow down if it is not cap/security. If your argument has page long taglines, I'm not going to get all of that exactly as you worded it.
 * **Prep Time Usage:** 8 minutes.(10 for Golden Desert) Prep time ends the moment the flash drive leaves the computer. I allow XC questions to go through in exchange for prep time.
 * **Extensions:** I don't like extension parties. If you did not reference a card in the previous speech, I am not going to just let you extend it.
 * **Ask if you have any questions**

It must fit in the format: A.) Interpretation, B.) Violation, C.) Standards, D.) Voters I am very open to theory. Like, I would vote for "condo bad" type of open. You have to be slow for me so you don't lose me. For better organization, let's all just group up all the theory arguments and put them at the very top unless you have a very specific reason that you think would make your argument clearer. For abuse claims, it must have actually happened in round for me to consider it. In other words, potential abuse is not a voter
 * Theory:**

A T argument must follow the standard Theory format. The neg team should either explicitly drop or impact the T. Ts that are forgotten make me sad.
 * Topicality:**

Same as T, it must follow the Theory format. I expect a lot of Framework to be basically about the role of the ballot. Make sure you are arguing more than just "Ground/Predictability". If the round goes into just a framework debate, I will vote for whichever team is able to convey their argument clearer. This means the rebuttal speeches can either make you or break you. I expect you to tell me why I should care. I recognize that teams basically run FW shells and blocks, but it does not allow you to just blaze through it. Explain.
 * Framework:**

It seems as though every neg team is running a K these days. I've read a bit too much cap for it to be healthy and I am reading more on biopower/security. Running either version of these arguments can either make me smile profusely or cringe horribly. If you plan on running some unheard of philosopher, I think it's reasonable for me to say that I probably haven't read your author. Either way, I am looking for you to clearly explain your thesis and how the world should function under your view of the alt. I see debate rounds with Ks going either one of two ways, a FW debate or a full on clash on ideologies.
 * Kritiks:**


 * CPs & DAs:** Lol people rarely runs these anymore. Ask me in round if you have questions.