Furtado,+Miro

I debated four years on the NatCir, first 3 in policy, last in LD. I bid in policy and qualified to the TOC in LD at Harvard semis. I was a lone wolf without a coach for the last 2 years. The following paradigm is for LD, but can be applied to policy.
 * Harvard '20, Wilson '16**
 * furtado [at] college.harvard.edu**

//Notes for Harvard://
 * If all you're reading is analytics, you don't need to flash and I will take prep from the other team if they want you to and you agree.
 * Yes I would love to be on your email chain but it doesn't really matter to me nor exempt you from being clear while spreading
 * Don't say 'cut that card there' if you're just reading analytics. You can just stop reading them.

LARP: 1 - 2 K: 1 - 2 Fwk: 3 - 5 (or higher if the pool is bad) Theory: 4 - S
 * Cheat Sheet**

[Insert cliché about how debate is your activity not mine]. My paradigm is a description of how I default, most of it can be easily changed by arguments in round. I vote based on the flow.
 * General**
 * For the love of all that is holy, slow down on author cites. LDers also go too fast on analytics often.
 * I default comparing worlds.
 * I default offense/defense. I don't think terminal defense is a thing.
 * I believe in the post/pre-fiat distinction.
 * I don't vote on rep. I don't care if you are the top debater in the country: if you lose the round, you lost. Even if I wanted to vote on rep, I'm so bad with names I probably wouldn't be able to remember who is who. That said, I vote for top debaters more, because they are generally better.
 * I have a low threshold for extensions, particularly in LARP debates.
 * Tech > Truth. I am not interventionist.

I was a policy debater for 3 years, I think I can handle whatever LD has to throw at me. CPs are cool, DAs are cool, etc. That said, advantages/DAs in LD seem to be constructed out of some of the worst cards in existence. CPs are underexplored.
 * LARP/Policy**
 * Low threshold on answering theoretical objections to politics DA.
 * Link can control the direction of UQ, UQ can't control the direction of the link.

Go ahead, my entire career was predicated on these arguments.
 * K**
 * It's nice to be at least tangentially related to the topic however, makes for a more interesting debate.
 * A ROTJ is cool but not essential, especially against a util aff.
 * It is strategic to spend a lot of time explaining how the K interacts with the framework. Most Ks rely on a somewhat assumed utilitarian framework and you need to justify either why util is true or framework debates are bad.

There is a lot of framework debate in the north-east so I think have some familiarity with this. I understand different moral frameworks and some meta-ethical justifications for them. However, I mostly read util during my career. Skep is fine, try not to read it against Ks or soft-left impacts though. You need to explain to me why skep isn't just defense. CPs are under-explored in fwk debates.
 * Framework**

I think that LD needs theory de-escalation. Theory should **never** be your A-strat and the idea of "theory debaters" is somewhat mind boggling to me. With that in mind, here are my thoughts: I am not the judge you want to be reading brackets theory in front of.
 * Theory**
 * I default c/i
 * I default "drop the arg" on theory, "drop the debater" on T
 * I am open to RVIs, but don't read new 2AR RVIs.
 * If it happened out of round, I do not care. I won't look at screenshots. (Exception: Academic integrity arguments about miscutting an article)
 * I think that remedies are under-explored in these debates. Instead of "drop the debater," why not "take away her/his ability to perm"? I am much more likely to give you your remedy than to drop the debater.

I use speaks to enforce norms. Unfortuntely due to broader LD norms, I have to be a teensy bit of a point fairy, so 29 means I think you should clear. Wiki/disclosure is one such norm that I think should become a regular practice in LD (unless you're breaking ofc), although I have sympathy for small schools. To be more explicit, this means that sketchy disclosure things are reflected in your speaks. Racism/sexism/ableism/etc. are all things that I do not think should be norms in LD (or at all). Don't be a jerk. Y'all need to not extend plan texts.
 * Speaks/Misc**