Simmons,+Tyler

4 years HS debate in Montana, 4 years college debate for Concordia College, Moorhead MN.

Speaker points: there are three tiers that I give points in -

26-27.5: Line by line is good or bad, but generally attempted. 26 means you showed up and tried. 27.5 means you are boring and don't understand debate but technical enough to win the round.

27.5-28.5: Macro Strategy: I will reward strategic decisions. Concede a K and then read a bunch of cards about why their disad/CP links more than your aff? Sounds like a great idea! Kick your plan text and go for impact turns? Why not?! Impact turn framework and just go for that? Might as well, if you're losing everything else. Point is, there are many strategic decisions you can make in a round, these are some I think might be cool, if you are making any you'll probably get these kind of points.

28.5-30: Personality. Not only do you have tier 1 and 2 down, you are showing some personality in the round, making jokes or just generally having fun or whatever.

Impact your arguments and I will evaluate them, whatever they may be. This is the most important thing I have to say. I did mostly K debate in college, however, so keep that in mind in terms of my experience with arguments like agents, politics, some theory and some other stuff that I would have just answered with framework. While I have judged these arguments some by this point, because I never made them, my threshold for explanation may be a bit higher than normal. Often that just leads to my decisions taking a bit longer than you may be used to, but you've got fair warning. If you can't pronounce the words in your K, then don't run it. Debate is a game, no matter what framework you approach it with, and I will generally evaluate with that in mind.

Default rules that you can contract (argue/impact your way) out of: Rejecting the argument, not the team. Dispo is probably condo and I don't really care anyway. Multiple perms are fine. Multiple counterplans may be a little sketchy. Counterplan and K seems more theoretically legit than 2 CPs but that's a whim and anyway CP and K can be a bad idea if there is potential for contradiction (this of course depends on your alternative and your ability to spin these arguments). PICs may be good or bad.

If you're going to do the theory debate, know that I don't care and you will have to overcome that. Plus my threshold for voting for you if you are just reading blocks at me will be pretty high. NO ONE can flow all of that bs, so just slow down and make good arguments instead of blazing through your terrible 30-point blocks.

Super-critical, ie identification of structural inequalities - I haven't decided but I have often thought this is a compelling argument if done right. Have a clear picture of what I'm voting for and these arguments can be very persuasive. Lack a clear 'framework' for the debate and I am unlikely to vote for you.

I will answer any questions.

I also feel the need to add this: I hate LOST scenarios and anything about Japan Rearm. You will run them, I will vote for you, but while you are on that page I will be very unhappy.

I feel like I'm very unlikely to vote on Substantial T without a list of cases that meet and a list of ground lost because they weren't 'substantial'. Even with those things you'll have some hurdles to overcome.