Conlay,+Alec

Former LD debater from Mayde Creek in Houston, TX.

I debated public forum for 2 years and moved onto Lincoln Douglas for my junior and senior years where I debated extensively on the Texas/national circuit. As of right now, I don't plan on judging a ton of rounds, so take that into consideration I guess. If i'm on a panel, I will be as tabula rasa as humanly possible.

I never liked judges that were overly picky or refused to listen to arguments so I don't care what you do, just don't put me in an awkward position and don't be a complete goober to your opponent.
 * Short paradigm for those who don't want to read everything:**

__**Longer paradigm:**__

I don't care how fast you go, just don't whisper and don't mumble. A lot of debaters think they have to use a higher pitch voice to go faster, that is completely false. If you are a person who has a particularly high pitch voice, I apologize but I might have a hard time hearing you. I will yell clear or slow. I like when debaters are funny but if you're not funny, don't try to be. I average a 28 for speaks and largely base speaks on strategy.
 * Speaking styles:**

Some of my peers thought I read too much theory when I debated (they were probably right) but I don't think there's such thing as "too much" when it comes to any style of debate. Therefore, I don't care how much theory you read, just don't read disclosure theory and don't read poorly written shells. This does not mean you should go out of your way to read theory in front of me however, there's nothing worse than when a debater invites a theory debate that they can't keep up with. If you enjoy reading theory then go for it, if you don't then don't read it. Other notes: I'm perfectly ok with args that say "fairness/education isn't a voter". If there's defense on an argument, there's no such thing as risk of offense on theory. Default no RVIs unless told otherwise. Would prefer you read a counter interpretation. I don't know how to judge "reasonability". Be comparative.
 * Theory:**

There's nothing better than a good old-fashion larp throwdown. I debated this style a lot my junior year and feel comfortable judging this style of debate. You really need to weigh arguments (this goes for everything). I really enjoy when a debater uses the nuances of their framework to outweigh a turn or their opponent's offense. In my experience, the larp debate can get super muddled if one of you isn't sign posting in a loud or obvious way. __Seriously, don't say "moving on to the disad" at the same pace as the rest of your speech because I guarantee I won't hear it.__
 * LARP:**

Go for it, however I don't like that debaters have stopped being creative with their arguments and just recycle the same old "cap bad" cards that we've all heard before. I think that counter-Ks are super cool if done right. I've seen some alts that advocate violence towards groups of people (be it the oppressed or the oppressor) and I really despise those arguments and feel they have no place in the debate world. __K's are dope, just slow down because I probably haven't read whatever new psychoanalysis theory you're reading before.__
 * Kritiks:**

I focused my entire senior year to this style of debate and I really feel it's a lost art form. 100% go for it, but with some caveats: 1.) Don't lie to your opponent in CX and say "there is no skep triggers in my case" and in your next speech say "jk skep triggered". You already dedicated yourself to the sketch, don't back out now. 2.) Don't do it wrong aka don't read presumption triggers with no presumption args, don't read skep/permissibility triggers in your AC if you don't say "skep/permis flows aff". 3.) Be ready to defend your practices if your opponent calls you out on the issue.
 * Tricks/skep:**

Yeah sure, does anyone ever actually say "no i hate T"? Shells need a carded definition and counter-interps don't necessarily need one (but a carded interp probably outweighs an uncarded one, depending on the standards/reasons to prefer).
 * Topicality:**

__**10/30/15 UPDATE:**__ I really hate the direction debate is going. It feels like every single round is the same rehashed K debate over and over again. Yes, Giroux is a good card. No, you don't have to slap it on at the end of every case you read. If you structure your cases with overused critical arguments, you probably shouldn't pref me very high. This doesn't mean don't read critical arguments in front of me, it just means be a little more creative.

If you have any questions, email me at alecconlay96@gmail.com or message me on facebook.