Morgan,+Daniel

Hey guys,

I'm a freshman Business student at UT. I debated on the national circuit in PF during high school, got to outrounds at Harvard, Berkeley, and a couple other cool tournaments. I've won a couple tournaments in LD and dabbled in CX, so I can flow pretty much anything, and am familiar with esoteric arguments Now, on to the paradigm.

__**PF Paradigms**__


 * Speed**: I love fast, good arguments. Slow down on tag lines, and make sure I can catch your warrants. Speed is a strategy that can be employed to great success, especially if it catches your opponent off guard. I will raise a hand if you're getting too jumbled and unclear. After the 3rd time, speaker points will be deducted.


 * Speaker Points**: If the round is slow, speaker points are based on how "pretty" you spoke. If the round is fast, speaker points depend on the amount of fluency breaks and technical errors you had. 30 is 95% perfect, 29 is great, 27-28 is average, 26 is poor, 25 is remedial.


 * Framework**: Framework is among the most important parts of the round for me. If you lose framework, you'd better explain why you win under their framework. If you win framework, you still have to explain why you win under the framework. Don't bother reading a 30-second framework saying that I should weigh the round on a cost-benefit. If you're going to run a framework, make it strategic.


 * Evidence**: I will likely call for a few pieces of evidence at the end of the round, so I prefer printed evidence. However, well formatted evidence on a laptop is no big deal for me to go through. Citations are not enough, I'm gonna need to see the whole card. Preferably the whole article, but it's ok if you don't have it. Purely logical arguments will be discounted if the other team has counter evidence, but logic alone can win unsourced arguments. Evidence comparision is crucial, and it needs to go past "His is from 2010, and mine's from 2011, therefore I win". I need to have warrants extended as well as author, date, and tag line.


 * K's, Plans, Counterplans, etc**: I have run these while in high school while doing PF, so they're fair game. However, I will hold them to the same standard I hold other arguments to, meaning that I will call for cards, listen for warrants, write down link stories, etc.


 * In Round Strategy:** First speakers should overload the second speaker with rebuttals, second speakers should pare down the debate into manageable chunks. I give the second speaker a little leeway for drops, but I will extend drops if they are mentioned. I don't care if you ask for evidence/cases during prep time, and prep time doesn't start until you get the evidence you asked for. I HATE when one team is called "unfair" for no reason, so unless they're actually being abusive, don't let those words come out of your mouth.


 * Conclusion:** My decision will be based on impact calculus, where the team with the best impact calc will win. Time frame, Magnitude, Probability. Use them. My default weighing mechanism is cost-benefit, in the absence of either team providing a framework.

__**LD Paradigms**__

My paradigms for LD are much the same as for PF. The main differences are that I view the Value-VC debate as a framework debate, so you might not even use a V-VC in your case. LD is also a lot more technical, so the flow become a lot more important.

In the final speeches, I will need roadmapped voters if you want me to vote on a specific issue, otherwise I'll choose what I feel was most important.

I expect LD to be more philosophy based, but I don't know every philosophy, so I will need an explanation of whatever post-modernist philosopher you choose to run at some point in the round. Evidence is more important to me in LD than in PF, so be aware that I will likely call for your case as well as cards. **Conclusion:** My decision will be based on impact calculus, where the team with the best impact calc will win. Time frame, Magnitude, Probability. Use them. My default weighing mechanism is cost-benefit, in the absence of either team providing a framework.