Tao,+Lizzie


 * Background:** I debated 4 years for Mercer Island High School (WA) and I spent the last two years primarily on the National Circuit. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and qualified to NFL Nationals my junior year, so whatever style you debate is definitely fine by me.

So, as I have just finished debating and haven't really created an identity for myself as a judge, I figure I will judge a lot similarly to how I debated. If you have debated against me or seen me debate, that would be a good type of debate to strive for. If not continue reading, I'll try and be as specific as possible.

**Short version:** As a debater my favorite rounds were substantive, this however, absolutely does NOT mean I am "anti-off cases". I believe theory is a necessary tool to check abuse. RVIs are fine. Speed is fine. Sign post! Ks are questionable in front of me. I might have trouble evaluating the really specific details of the Counterplan/PIC debate so be wary about LARPing extensively in front of me. Theory and other structural issues are fine. Have fun.

**Long version:**

Overview on myself as a debater: I consider myself a framework debater with an emphasis on the value and value-criterion so I prefer evaluating arguments through the standard that was decided in the round. Meta-ethics are fine in front of me. However, bad meta-ethics or misconstrued meta-ethics I will not like. Util debates bore me but that doesn't mean I will not evaluate it. If you want to go Util, spice up the round by doing some extra good weighing and evidence comparison. That'd be nice.


 * 1.) SPEED -** As I debated extensively on the national circuit, chances are that I will be able to flow your speed no matter what. However, you need to be clear. I have recently started flowing on my computer so my flows are usually mediocre at best (I am working on it). I will call clear but if it requires more than 2 clears I will stop yelling it and just flow as best I can (which is **not** a position you want to be in. Believe me). Further, if I a.) Call clear 2 times and am still unsatisfied with the clarity or b.) Call clear and hear no distinct effort to be clearer then your speaker points will get docked. **Please slow down on tags and author names - it will help winning my ballot way more than reading a 98th or 99th card at the bottom of your AC.**


 * 2.) THEORY -** There is nothing that bothers me more than debating against someone who ran theory solely as a time suck. Thus, as a judge, I have a reasonably high threshold for theory. This does not mean I will reject a shell that has no clear abuse, but I will a.) **DEFINITELY** be grumpy and take it out on your speaks b.) Be really really receptive to "I meets," "Drop the argument not the debater," and Reasonability claims. That being said, I probably err towards Competing Interpretations but if you make arguments as to why Reasonability is preferable then I will obviously use a reasonability calculus. Also, make sure there is a very clear ballot story. Additionally I am fine with RVIs you just need to warrant them as well as you would a normal argument.

Here is the kicker on theory that will A.) Get you much better speaks in front of me B.) Make winning the theory debate a whole lot easier for you: Two things:


 * 2a.)** If you make weighing between different standards such as why predictability is more important than ground or how grammar and textuality interact with each other then I will literally* love you forever.


 * 2b.)** If you are very clear as to what arguments your opponent is making that bite into shells and are very clear as to why you are being deprived of **key** ground and why things are **uniquely** unpredictable then you will make theory very easy for me to evaluate. Essentially, if you are showing clear abuse in the round then I will love it.


 * 2c.)** Additionally, it has come to my attention that the new hip fad is to run an education voter AND a fairness voter. It may seen self explanatory, but I would greatly appreciate weighing between those two voters as well.


 * 3.) KRITIKS/CRITICAL POSITIONS -** I was probably the world's least favorite fan of critical arguments. That being said, that certainly does not mean I will not vote on them or I will reject them at all. It means a few things: a.) I will be very receptive to a lot of intuitive responses against the kritik, regardless of what Hagglund or Zizek tell me. b.) I am not very well versed in the critical literature so you need to be really really clear as to what your advocacy is. I understand the different parts of a Kritik and what is necessary for it. My dislike of kritiks supercharges my hatred for miswritten or dumb kritiks. Hence - if your kritik does not have an alternative you should try and get my ballot pushed. Because I might physically **harm you**.


 * This also applies largely to skepticism. I will vote on skepticism but my threshold for voting on skepticism is pretty high. I will not be happy voting on this argument and I will take out my anger on your speaker points.**


 * 4.) POLICY ARGUMENTS -** These arguments are fine to run in front me except it should be known that I am not very familiar with the specific nuances of these types of arguments as I was not much of a "LARP"er during the bulk of my debate career. So, if you do run them in front of me be extremely clear on what their ballot role is and how they interact with the other arguments (specifically your opponent's framework if it is non-utilitarian) in the round. Additionally, like I said before, evaluating the Counterplan/PIC debate might be a little more difficult for me as I have very rarely had to deal with those sorts of things during my profession. So I would strongly suggest being absolutely crystal clear on how each argument functions or at the very least do some work to compare arguments for me.


 * 4a.)** For disadvantages if you are running multiples ones and for some reason it becomes abundantly clear that you will be winning all of them, the better strategy in front of me would be to abide by "less is more" and go hard for one and show me why you are truly winning that due to x, y, and z as opposed to spending a fraction of the time attempting to win each.


 * 5.) EXTENSION THRESHOLD -** This has just come to my attention as I am judging this round (don't worry it's during prep time. Ok the round just ended and I gave the RFD) that different judges have different interpretations on what needs to be extended to win an argument. Here are my views:


 * 5a.)** Plans: If your opponent contests plan focus then you NEED to extend the Plan text if you are running a plan. This doesn't have be a reiteration of the exact wording of the plan text but at least some sort of extension that iterates how the resolution is now the plan. You need to extend the counterplan text and things like that if you want to be accessing offense from your specified advocacy. I know I am a minority on this issue, but this is what I believe. I am not going to automatically reject all offense linking back to the plan/dock your speakerpoints but I will have a harder time voting for you than I normally would have.


 * 5b.)** Even if your opponent concedes that fairness is a voter I still require you to extend it. It doesn't have to be an amazing extension but it has to be some sort of extension of the voter or else I am going to have a very difficult time voting for your theory argument. Also- on that note you need to extend the interpretation and violation even if they aren't contested.


 * 6.) MISCELLANEOUS –**


 * 6a.)** Please be nice. When people are unnecessarily rude it just makes the round uncomfortable and I am naturally an awkward person so please don't do that to me.


 * 6b.)** If you need to sit down early because you extended a conceded argument with ballot implications (i.e. theory) and it is clear that I will vote on it, feel free to sit down. I'll probably bump up your speaks if you do.


 * 6c.)** Pre-flow before the round please!


 * 6d.)** Ok this one is tricky - I like it when debaters are funny/make me laugh and your speaks will be raised if you are funny. HOWEVER, if you are trying too hard to be funny/coming off as arrogant or annoying in attempts to be funny then your speaks will probably take a hit.


 * 6e.)** I don't care if you sit or stand during speeches and prep time but I do require both debaters to stand during Cross-Examination. I like to play it old school.


 * 6f.)** In terms of flex prep, I am happy to allow debaters to ask question during prep time but your opponent can refuse to answer the question(s). Both debaters MUST take cross examination - I don't allow debaters to take prep during Cross-Ex.


 * 7.) PET PEEVES-** Mispronunciation of common author names. Ohhhh man. I don't know if I will dock speaks for this but I will certainly dislike you as a person. (Ex: Gauthier - pronounced "Go-tee-ay" NOT "Goth-ee-air." Korsgaard is pronounced "Cores-Guard" not "Coo-ers-gard" OH MY GOSH.) Also, you know what isn't funny? Purposefully mispronouncing author names in front of me. If you think this is funny just strike me. Please.


 * figuratively**