Queale,+Elliot


 * Updated for the GMU patriot games.**
 * -Please know that I am in the middle of finals right now and have one on Monday, normally I'm not this irritable.**
 * -This will be my first tournament on the topic, and because of finals week, I will probably not do much research, but i'll try my best.**

Ask me questions before the round and I will respond to the best of my abilities. My email is ewqueale@gmail.com, so if you have questions about the round just email me.

__**Background:**__

I had debated all throughout high school. I did Policy debate through my freshman year and halfway into my sophomore year when I switched over to LD. I have attended the JDI Policy debate camp as well as VBIs LD for 3 years. I have competed on all levels, from traditional to circuit style tournaments.

__**General (i.e. you are walking to the round right now):**__

I try my best to leave bias out of the round when making my decision and will listen what you say as long as there is some warrant until it is proven wrong by your opponent, but I do default certain ways if there was no work done on those areas of the debate. I am fine with most arguments like CPs, Ks, DAs, and theory, you just need to explain why they win you the round. I know how these arguments function, but I am probably not as well versed on the literature as you are, so (especially on Ks) make sure you explain the cards when you extend them in the rebuttals. **As for speed**, I haven't been in a round in a while, so I am probably not going to catch everything you say. Slow down for tags and analytics. You should also slow down for Theory, especially on the interp if you want me to get that down on the flow. As for voting issues, I will vote on pretty much anything as long as it is extended throughout the debate and make it clear why that should win you the round. Be clear and cooperative with your opponent and you will get high speaks from me (27-29). If you are reading something that is philosophically confusing or nuanced just make sure to explain it well to me. Lastly, and probably most importantly, keep in mind if you are trying to just confuse your opponent, you will probably confuse me. I am a simple minded creature.

A bit more specific...

__**T/Theory:**__

I love good Topicality debates. So, yeah, go for T. My opinion on theory is that it is designed to structure the rules of debate. Basically what I am saying is that your theory says there is a rule and the other person breaks that rule. I will vote however the debaters structure theory through their voters (RVIs, Drop the Debater, etc.) and will evaluate the arguments through any paradigm that is brought up. I default to Competing Interps for Theory and Reasonability for T, but that is if it is undebated. Just slow down for interps (and intricate violations) so I can get them down and emphasize the standards.

__**Case structure:**__

I don't understand why everyone is almost legally obligated to read a typical Value/VC case. I think it is nice and organized, but go ahead and read your plans or whatever you may want, but just tell me why that specific case structure wins you the round i.e. why the resolution calls for a plan. Also, If you plan on burying spikes or theory args in the AC/NC, just remember that if you are trying to confuse your opponent, you will probably confuse me, too. Just make it clear and slow down a bit so I can get it down.

__**Presumption/Permissibility:**__

I assume a coin flip for presumption if it is not debated. I will vote on either permissibility or presumption in the round, just make sure that it is very clear why you win one or the other.

__**Kritiks**:__

So I do come from a policy background, so I do understand Kritiks fairly well. I will vote on any kritik that has a specific impact back to a framework of some sorts. I will say that I come from Baltimore, where Race Ks are super prevalent, and it made me move to LD. Not to say that I will not vote on them, I try to leave bias out of the round, but if your strat is 1 off race K, you may want to add something else to read. I will vote on any performance or nuanced Kritikal args, but explain them to me because you (hopefully) understand that argument better than I do. Perms are good, but justify them and don't just say "perm do both" and move on, say why. Nevertheless, I **LOVE** a solid K that forces a new perspective on the issue that seriously undermines your opponents strategy.

__**CPs/Disads**__

I love these both to death. Not even joking, if you can run a solid CP in LD this year, you are going to win rounds. Anyways, following the theme, explain it and I will vote on it. Make sure your links are clear, your Net Benefit is stated, and competition is at least existent. Perms are a tricky thing, and you (as the aff) need to explain what the perm is actually doing (is it a timeframe perm? Whats the NB for doing the Perm?). Disks are very similar in that the links need to be clear and impacts link into a framework.