Berman,+Mia

Update for Columbia: Please start at 50% and then ramp up (I haven't judged in a while)

Hey! I debated LD for 5 years for Hopkins High School in MN and had moderate success, breaking at most bid tournaments, reaching 6 bid rounds and qualified to NSDA Nationals my sophomore year. I have worked at the Harvard Debate Camp, NSD and PDI. I am a sophomore Johns Hopkins University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a triple minor in Jewish Studies, Africana Studies, and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies. I am now coaching for Loyola Blakefield High School in Maryland. My debate preferences are fairly similar to Christian Tarsney and Nick Smith, my former coaches, so if you can't find your answer here, err to their paradigms.

I advise caution when discussing sensitive issues. I will listen to these arguments as I believe they are usually key ground, however, I would appreciate that, if you are planning on running these sorts of arguments, you first offer a trigger warning; ask your opponent whether or not they would be comfortable debating it. This is not an excuse for you (if you are the opponent) to stop them from running this argument if you simply don't feel like debating it, but a way of not having to be triggered by such a sensitive issue in round. If you are opposing an argument like this in round, I ask you to be sensitive and respectful in how you respond to it. There are non-offensive and smart arguments to make, or you can simply preclude the arguments, or argue why you cannot argue against these. Thank you.

If you can't find what you're looking for in here, feel free to ask before round, Facebook me, or text me at 612-360-1963

=__Short version:__= --Speed is fine, I will yell clear/slow --If you run disclosure theory you will get a lose 20 (Unless its must disclose plan text, that is totally acceptable) --If you run "must run a plan" or "AFC" you will get 25 speaks max --Being sketchy is not ok --I reserve the right to dock speaks for extreme rudeness --Weird arguments/alternative approaches to debate and the topic are fun and good as long as you explain them --Extinction good is fine --I reserve the right to drop you if you are being extremely offensive --If you want to flash me your case because you're worried I will miss something I am totally OK with that --Have fun, be nice --DONT TRY TO SHAKE MY HAND. I am sorry but I don't understand this trend. Shake your opponent hand, please don't shake mine.

=__Long version:__=




 * Theory**
 * I default reasonability, RVIs and drop the argument.** These are just defaults and can be overridden, however I personally find theory silly. **If you like to run theory as the A strat __I am not the judge for you__.** I __**will**__ listen to fairness and education aren't voters arguments. If there is genuine abuse, I am glad to listen to shells that accurately point out the abuse and why it is bad. That being said, if you can prove why the abuse isn't there, I will vote on that too. Semantic "I meets" are silly and I have a low threshold for responses to those. Furthermore, **I do not find theory against K's particularly persuasive.** Specifically if the debater running the K makes arguments how your conception of fairness or education is coming from the dominate powers perspective, I will often find myself persuaded to look at the K before theory. In these situations, I would rather you either engage the K or preclude it with your case. I think some of the arguments that are often made against Ks and put into a theory format can potentially be persuasive, but when structured as a theory shell they become much easier to beat. (If you have questions about what I mean or how these arguments would function, feel free to ask)

I didn't run straight up larp much as a debater, but thats not to say I won't judge it like anything else, however I am probably not the best to evaluate these rounds. Don't assume I know the technicalities of these arguments and make sure to explain how everything functions.
 * Larp/Util**

Go ahead! As a debater, especially towards the end of my career, this was what I enjoyed running most. That being said, if I don't understand it after CX, I can't expect your opponent to understand it either and will have a difficult time voting on it. Don't be purposefully confusing; make it clear how the case functions and where I am supposed to vote. If you are running something denser than fem/cap/colonialism/anthro, please try to go a bit slower than normal to make sure it is clear. If I have to say clear/slow several times and I still look confused, there is a problem and you likely won't be able to fix it in later speeches.
 * K's/Critical cases**

I assign speaker points based off diversity and development of argumentation, fluency/clearness, and general disposition/attitude. Humor can go a long way, as long as it is not at anothers expense. If I have to yell clear more than 3 times I will begin to dock speaks, .5 each additional time.
 * Speaker Points**

In college I plan on majoring in philosophy and I find it fascinating, however I don't know every philosophical position and don't read your case at me like I do. If you know your position is more obscure and denser, make sure to slow down and be clear about explaining it in cross-ex and your rebuttals.
 * Dense Philosophical Positions**

Don't. If you're going to do it, own up to it.
 * Sketchy**



I evaluate the round in layers. I tend to care more about the line by line but can be swayed by the big picture. I appreciate weighing, it is going to have to happen at some point, so either you can do it for me, or I will do it and you will likely be upset. Don't waste your time on arguments that don't matter; only go for what you need to in order to win. If that takes the entire time, use it. If you can win the round in 2 minutes in the 2N, I would rather you sit down than ramble for the remainder of your time.
 * Overall Round Evaluation**

Overall, I am here to judge you and hopefully the round can be enjoyable and educational for all of us. Choose well! :)