Ackroyd,+Alex

My debate experience: I debated for three years for Palo Alto High School in California on the local and national circuit, graduating in 2008. I taught at UTNIF summer 08 and at SNFI Third Week summer 09.

I believe debate is a game, and you get to make the rules. Do whatever you please, run whatever you please, I honestly don't care. I've been out of touch so I don't know what the recent ~controversial~ stuff is, but I do care about good sportsmanship.

I will not call for evidence/cases/stuff after round because I feel that gives extra speech time to one debater, and that while what you're reading is important it is equally important for you to demonstrate your ability to speak and extemporaneously communicate. b) I'm lazy. Moreover, that kind of nonsense is why tournaments run late. Not on my watch. The exception is if there is an accusation of one debater lying about what they read, but who does that?

More on flowing: I have serious issues with names. Slow way, way down and enunciate them. I try to be super obvious when I am lost, I flap pages around and look up. If I am lost and not flowing then your argument is not on my flow (too bad) and I'm not going to vote on it (so sad). I also feel that speed is a strategic tradeoff on your part and will not make any effort to slow you down: I have a maximum flow rate and if you exceed that rate I will get less of your argument down. Your call. I will call clear if your speech is unrecognizable one and only one time.

I consider a "new" argument to be: an extension of a case argument in the 2ar that was not made in the 1ar, a new response to a case argument after the 1ar by either debater, and drawing new impacts after the 1ar. I do NOT consider the following ever to be new: weighing analysis and criticizing the quality of extensions.

Cross-ex is my favorite part of the round.