Leavitt,+Cameron

Pronouns: They/Them/Their

I mostly competed in LD, but dabbled in Policy over the course of four years at Kempner High School. I cleared at small-school locals, ToC bids, and major TFA tournaments, so I have plenty of experience at a load of different levels of debate and with a wide variety of styles.

Debate is an activity for debaters, and not for judges, so my opinion on a lot of things shouldn’t matter. Just know that I’ll evaluate whatever you read in front of me, insofar as you link it back to some framework/weighing argument. The last thing you do should be explaining the layers and why you win the top one. I think debate should be inclusive and open, so really my only major note is that both debaters should be mindful of rhetoric and inclusivity – if you are actively hateful I will down you. I don’t like skep and have a complicated relationship with the wide variety of ways that Nietzsche is read, but I will evaluate it like anything else, just know it’s kind of risky speaks-wise.

As far as speed goes, I can handle it fine, but I need to know when your tag and authors start, so you should slow for tags, and be very clear for authors.

As far as particular styles I only have a couple of notes in particular:

On theory/T – I default to competing interps, but that’s only if neither debater makes an argument one way or another. If that’s the case, neither of you will fare very well on speaks. I can flow shells alright, but if it’s too dense or fast I’m probably going to miss stuff. If you want to read a shell just break it out into clear parts and read the interp a little slower than you would read a tag.

Spikes/Tricks – I like watching these arguments run well, but I probably won’t be the best to evaluate them if you speed through them. You can be as sketchy as you want, but you need to justify it and be up front about what you defend. If it’s important, slow down a bit for it. If you’re racing through them just to be as confusing as possible for your opponent, it’s probably confusing for me too, and you deserve to lose for having such a bad strat.

K affs/performance/protest etc – Go for it, I read one for all of my senior year, just do you. My only caveat is that if I get the vibe you’re don’t have a personal connection to the position I’ll probably make sure you aren’t happy about your speaks.

Ks in general – I enjoyed this aspect of debate the most, and read a lot of literature, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to explain yourself. I know a lot of the terms and buzzwords, but if your impact is, for example, bare life or social death, it shouldn’t matter if I know what that is, you still need to explain it to me like you would any other argument.

CPs – My threshold for competition on CPs is not particularly high, but I don’t buy textual competition at face value, you’ll need to justify it.

DAs – I don’t even know what notes you would need for DAs.

Speaks start at a 27 and move up and down based on how you do. This includes clarity, strategy and passion, but you’ll always get bonus points if you make me laugh.

If you have any particular questions you can email me at tleav37044@gmail.com or message me on Facebook.