Oliver,+Austin

Debated for 2 ½ years at Great Bridge High School in VA. Current 4th year debater at George Mason.

I largely have experience reading and researching kritikal arguments, but I will resign myself to judging anything you choose to read in front of me.

I am flow-centric and will try to record as much of the debate as possible, sometimes at the expense of organizing and compartmentalizing my flow/your arguments. This means two things for you:

1. Making your organization as explicit as possible will help you immensely (largely by helping me to summarize your arguments). Make sure to make use of numbering/subpoints. 2. If you’re going to be repetitive, at least make sure that you’re attaching extended arguments to your opponent’s. This will help me to organize future speeches in the debate.

Beyond that I really don’t care what you chose to say or do in debate. I do, however, have several petty concerns that if left unsatisfied will affect my ability to judge you (probably because I’ll be too busy facebook messaging someone about how I hate what you’re doing). They are as follows:

Overviews should NOT contain lengthy impact extensions/explanations. That can be done on the line by line. Overviews SHOULD be an explanation of your alternative or a specific link argument that the 2AC mishandled. I feel the need to say this because for some reason people seem to like the former overview-structure. This obviously does not apply to DAs or CPs. I will say that you should make the mechanism of your CP explicit in the overview, as I will not be familiar with it if it’s rooted in the topic literature. Maybe spend more time explaining this than you would with other judges. I love overwrought novels but hate overwrought speeches. Don't make me hate you.

Case debates are almost always mishandled and almost always under-utilized. It shouldn’t be hard to push a case debate onto your 1N if you don’t feel familiar enough with the aff to give a competent 2NC on case. That having been said, 1NRs are probably more under-utilized than case debates. Please fix this, it is not a good thing. This goes double for K affs. I hate wasted potential. Don't make me hate you.

Application should always be your priority when extending an argument. You can highlight all of the components of an argument that your opponent mishandled or dropped but it means nothing to me if you cannot explain why that means the aff is a bad idea. Likewise, I don’t enjoy watching people become indignant over dropped arguments that were clearly not so. Unless you get REALLY indignant – that will probably at least catch my attention. I hate messy debates and I hate being bored. Don't make me hate you.

There is a fine line between confidence and rudeness, but I will know when you’ve crossed it. I root for the underdog and hate pomp. Don’t make me root against you. Don’t make me hate you.

One last thing – I don’t really like making eye contact with people. If you see me looking at you during your speech it probably isn’t a good thing, as I won’t be flowing. I also tend to stare at people when I disapprove of what they’re doing. If I seem absorbed in my flow, please don’t let this discourage you in the debate, you’re probably doing fine.