Olson,+Ariel

They/Them pronouns If this is unclear and you want to know anything else about my paradigm or to contact me after the round (or include me on an email chain) my email is: arieldoesld@gmail.com
 * Graduated from Fort Lauderdale High School in 2016**
 * Current policy debater for University of Central Florida**

If you're doing prefs 5 minutes before they're due, here's a really __rough__ cheat sheet: 1- K and performance debaters 2- heavy framework debaters, general topical debate 3- LARP debaters and util debaters 4- Theory/ Tricks debaters

__**General Things**__ I adore the high school LD community and all that it offered me when I debated, and as a result I feel like it's good to set certain norms in debate. Things such as, respecting pronouns, not being racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ transphobic, and not trying to destroy a novice just to feel good about yourself. If you use words like "retarded" or "gay" as synonyms for stupid, you will loose the round. Word choice means something.

Beyond being offensive, this is really your round. be comfortable, I'm not the judge to dock speaks because you took off your shoes to spread or if you say a "curse word".

Some things, I straight up won't vote on, like "must prove oppression bad/ oppression good", Moral skepticism (if you're uncertain about this ask me before the round), or "Racism isnt real/ sqo is fine"

I actually really love debate, and think judging should be a way of helping debaters improve instead of just trying to look cool and get paid. I'm really open to discussing my paradigm and my views on debate with people, please don't feel afraid to approach me or ask me about it!

__**Specifics**__ __**Kritical/ Performance Debate**__ This was really my jam for the end of my high school debate career and still in college, so if this is your style debate I'm super open to whatever you want to run. This doesn't mean read some random K position and pretend other arguments don't exist, I won't hack for these positions. Be sure you're clear on what the performance or K does, why it matters, and how that interacts with what your opponent is saying. generally when people perform they do it with the intent to really make a change, so if you spread through a narrative, or read things the same way you would a plan aff, I will still evaluate your arguments however your speaks are going to suffer.

__**Framework**__ I did LD long enough to know how framework works. I appreciate a good framework debate beyond util/deon, or other really generic frameworks. If there's something really intergral to the weighing mechanism your framework has (like when people read that you can't liberate oppressed if they don't know they're oppressed) please make this clear to me. I can only evaluate impacts based on what's being extended as how to weigh them so if you read something in the aff then try to bring it up again in the 2AR it's going to be difficult for me to really use it in evaluation. I like to think I have a decent understanding of philosophical concepts, but dont make assumptions. Especially if your opponent calls you on not having a warrant for something, you cant just say it's obvious, or that's what X theory says and assume I know it.

__**LARP/ Util Debate**__ This wasn't my favorite, but I am a policy debater, and I will listen to it.

__**Tricks/ Theory Debate**__ I'm not really down with this. It wasn't my jam in high school, and I have many opinions on it that I won't interject into my judging. If this is your A strat and you aren't comfortable debating any other style of debate, I'll still judge the round. BUT I will need you to slow down significantly, and make way less assumptions. For example you can't just say "time skew" without actually saying the warrant to time skew, even if it's the same exact three lines everyone reads in their theory shells. You actually need to read it for me. This also means I'm more lenient with debaters who don't know how to respond to theory on a technical level but still make intuitive responses. I could list a bunch of judge defaults for theory but I'll probably just go off of whatever is read first in round so I dont see a point in having "defaults".

__**Speaker Points**__ Since I'm a first year out, this will probably change a lot over time. I tend to find reasons to award speaker points, like making really strategic decisions in round. Conversely I will also dock speaker points if you're being hyper aggressive to your opponent. And there is a big difference between being a really strong confident debater and attacking your opponent.

=**Policy Paradigm**= So most of the things above apply to my preferences in terms of policy as well, however there are obviously some differences between LD and policy. If you're pinched for time but have already read my partner's paradigm (Keisha Foon), you've got a pretty good idea of how I judge because we're pretty similar. In regard to framework (like policy framework) I'm pretty open to whatever you want to read. A lot of debaters seem to blur the lines of Framework and T so if you're going to mash the two arguments together all I ask is you explain how each section of the argument functions. Also make sure you're impacting this stuff out. There's a lot more time in policy and if you're asking me to weigh impacts, make sure they're clear that "ABC impacts to Z" and then weigh the impact of Z. I won't do that for you. also the clearer you weigh your impacts, the easier you make my job and your speaks will totally reflect that. I'm probably forgetting a ton of things so if you have a question please feel free to email me. I'm also open to receiving emails after a round/tournament if you want to further understand how I perceived your round.