Foster,+Lucas

I did LD on the national circuit for the better parts of 2009-2011. I'm going to be judging at Fullerton for San Dieguito Academy.

I've been out of the community for a few years.

I’ll try to be tab.

Speed- is cool, just be clear. For more complex arguments, I would prefer if you slow down, your position is meaningless if I only flow a series of monosyllabic words and ‘vote neg’. I’ll !CLEAR! you three times but if you still are still unclear and I can’t flow you I will just cross my arms and give up.

Policy- T- I don’t enjoy watching topicality debates, I think they're blippy, but will vote on them if well done.

CP’s/ DA’s- I prefer watching a substantive link debate than a sneaky PIC and tix DA. I think there is a lot of good debate to be had here, and I like when people run DA’s to CP’s, other interesting things like this.

K- I need to understand the role of the ballot, would prefer if you have a decent grip on the literature, wrote your stuff yourself, and can explain every aspect in your own words. I read enough of the literature to probably know what your authors are really talking about. Generic K’s are ok, I ran some, but something a little more specific is probably more strategic, especially if you’re running a critical affirmative. I am of the opinion debate is a good place for this sort of discussion, and I ran a lot of critical positions in high school. Mishandling K framework is probably a bad thing to do in front of me, and you may have trouble persuading me that kritiks are theoretically illegitimate.

Impacting Arguments/ Warrants- You might have a card that says patriarchy causes war, but i'll have trouble voting on this unless you can explain how your position solves patriarchal wars, not just explain why their discourse/ideology is patriarchal or squo is patriarchal. (yeah i know 2nc framework blah blah blah). This also applies to straight up policy arguments. If you see a gaping hole between a link and an impact point it out to me, things like that bother me. I’ll still vote on crappy arguments if your opponent lacks the ability to find gaping holes in your logic, but speaks will be docked .5 points if I’m voting on a position that does this sort of thing. I also would like for you to warrant and evaluate the function of your cards/ arguments in rebuttals.

LD- Run **ANYTHING** you like. I’m of the opinion that you don’t need a v/ vc if you provide another weighing mechanism. If you choose to go the traditional route and you are winning the vc debate I’ll have trouble evaluating impacts that are non-applicable to your standard.

I’ll default to competing interps on theory and competing advocacies/ comparing worlds, but I am fine with other stuff as long as it is warranted. Truth-tester is cool.

I think theory is slightly more important in LD right now as it is still developing community norms and is in a state of flux, whereas policy has seemed to be static for a decade or so. I enjoy LD theory debates and think it actually might effect the community.

Misc.- I think debate should be fun. Entertain me. Be humorous. I will reward interesting, creative, or unique positions with higher speaker points. Make things simple if they can be. Don’t extend things through responses. Don’t be pretentious, unnecessarily pedantic, arrogant, or rude. This will bother me more than 11 off all t and aspec and word pics. SPEAKS- I’ll try to average a 27 and you have to impress me to get a 29+. Unless you say otherwise, I’ll default to body count/policy-making when making my decision.