O'Krent,+Marc

I was previously affiliated with Harvard-Westlake. Currently affiliated with Marlborough.

I was a policy debater in High School. I also did Impromptu and “Spar” for anyone who remembers. I did DHI as well, so I enjoy occasional humor!

I am open to pretty much anything as long as the debater is making well-reasoned, logical and well-articulated arguments. You must link back to your standard.

 Speed: I prefer a medium speed but can handle pretty much anything.  That being said, if you see me stop writing you should know what that means: you’re not articulating or beating a dead horse and should move on.

And if you're reading a long block at high speed, I prefer a summarizing statement at the end of your spread for clarity. As in "What this means is __"

Extensions: in the rebuttals, it's ok to just say the name and the impact- you don't have re-cite warrants, etc (as long as you read them and links in the constructive or the 1st time you read the card).

I’m very well versed in CP’s, PIC’s, and DA’s. I like them all, especially if they are argued well. I’m also comfortable with Topicality arguments and have voted on those.

 Theory: I'm fine with Theory arguments and have voted on them. I rarely give RVI's- it has to be a really awful Theory argument to warrant that. Even if I don't like your Theory argument, I'll still look at your NC, should you have one lol.

I’m not big on abuse arguments

I'm not big on Theory Spikes in the AC either - I think they are time wasters.

I don't vote on Disclosure arguments.

I like a good robust CX, especially if it’s used to clarify evidence. Because of my background in Policy, I do pay attention to authors and dates, although they are not typically voting issues but they can make a difference in a close debate. I also allow the debaters to have some conversation during prep, but this is not the same as “flex prep” in that it can’t be argumentative but rather should be for clarification purposes only.

As far as K’s, they can be interesting, but tricky. I don't like Word K's.

I especially don’t like one side to tell me what the other side’s “burdens” are as if to condition my voting. <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Each side has to make their own case.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Finally, don’t forget to weigh the arguments for me at the end. If you don’t, I will and the outcome may not be what you intended.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Oh yes, have fun!