Carimbocas,+Elijah

** These are usually the general guidelines you will hear me say before the round: **
-**I like depth in cases, rather than breadth (unless your Theory says otherwise).**
 * -WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH every arg you run!**
 * -Standards that aren't pre-fiat are the default most important thing to emphasize around me. If you have Framework with little to no**
 * anaysis or link story, you're gonna have a bad time. Standards are by and far the thing i'm most likely to vote for.**
 * -Speed is okay and encouraged, so go ahead, Turbo. Yes you can sit //or// stand during the round.**
 * -I'm open to any type of argument, strat, or discourse. Does it have a warrant? Then yes. If you want to run something cray cray, FOR THE LOVE OF PETER SINGER DO IT.**
 * -Clarity in extensions with impact analysis: please do this.**
 * -GIVE VOTERS IN THE 2A/2N.**
 * -Tabula Rasa: If your opponent makes an egregiously wrong argument but it gets dropped, it is true.**
 * -Walk into rounds looking fresher than sliced bread out of the Hostess Bakery oven.**

I competed in LD Debate for Dobson High School for the period 2008-2011. During the time of the aforementioned tenure, there were massive changes to the Arizona circuit. During the school year of 2008-2009, the LD circuit remained traditional LD Debate style, with debaters continuing the trend that began circa 2001 using empiricism rather than analytics. Thus, the AZ circuit progressively grew more "Progressive" as the years went on, albeit my blanket statement isn’t entirely true for everyone during the time. Thus began the dichotomy betwixt the interpretation of what the debate ought to be, contrasted to it in practice. I also did IMP, EXT, and Congressional debate. I had a short tenure of about a year on ASU collegiate forensics. I currently coach LD and platform events at Dobson High.
 * History:**

I'm pretty lenient on many concepts in this arena, to each their own; but to the threshold that you don't infringe on one's ability to fully enjoy the activity. If both of you communicate to each other in the form of expletives, then go hard like concrete! I prefer formal rhetoric when it comes to convincing me as the judge why I should vote for you, but witty jocularity is much appreciated- judges are abused like Chris Brown to Rihanna when it comes to being pushed debate/speech ballots. But you as a competitor are probably hopped up on adrenaline...or fear during the round. You may sit or stand as per your preference, and I highly encourage flex prep. There is a high probability that I will be consuming refreshments during your round, because #yolo
 * Etiquette:**

I'll agree with the notion that sometimes Low Point Wins are assessed for good reason, but if you aren't perceptually dominant or completely sure of yourself i'm going to have a hard time believing your arguments. Communication is about persuasion, and to connect with others through charisma and a strong sense of presence. In terms of dress, I expect that like the great modern philosopher Jim Jones said, **you fly high, no lie**, and all competitors notice. Basically, a minimal level of dress attire that is presentable, clean, and not distracting is ideal. A suit that fits, appropriate color coordination, dress slacks, etc. that give me a perception that you care about the legitimacy of this activity. If you don't have a basis as to what that is, I have provided a free guide that establishes some precedent: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17703932/2012-2013%20Dobson%20Speech%2C%20Theatre%2C%20and%20Debate%20Men's%20Dress%20Clothing%20Guide.pdf
 * Aesthetics:**

I give full disclosure after rounds if both competitors agree, or if one defects, just a criticism so you can apply it to the rest of your rounds the same day. I give pretty good speaks overall, if you are analytically convincing enough, then it warrants you at //least// a 27/30.
 * Disclosure:**

One of the most neglected parts of Lincoln-Douglas debate, whilst at the same time the most integral, is the V/C debate. The standards and how each debater impacts to the decided standards is really how each round would be decided by me. I follow the traditional Claim-Warrant-Impact format in deciding what is and what not a complete argument is. The standards can also help me decide which arguments, even if they are won by a debater at the end of a round, are important.
 * Misc Info:**

Furthermore I prefer that you go for depth of argumentation rather than breadth of argumentation at the end of the 2AR/2NR. If you win a lot of arguments, or even just one argument integral to the debate, that should, or you should try to prove, its overall weight in the decision of the round. I like ACs that have a strong advocacy, also known as "Positional ACs" I also like them CPs Please make clear extensions of your evidence/ cards along with clear impact analysis everywhere on the flow. It will make judging a round less cumbersome if you compare how your arguments and especially evidence weigh against your opponent’s.