Ho,+Lyndie

Conflicts: Marcus, Kinkaid, Oakwood, Churchill JL

I debated LD for Marcus High School for three years on pretty much every Texas circuit and qualed to the TOC my sophomore and junior years.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of ACs - assuming you don't lose theory challenging it. NIBs/prestandards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled in an underview or other form of list, and numbered, or I might not catch it. My tolerance of basically any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory. Please ask any specific questions that you have if my paradigm doesn't cover stuff sufficiently. Also can't vote on anything I can't hear, so if I didn't flow it in an earlier speech, I won't backflow it. Signposting is super important.

Speed: Fine with it, if you're going too fast you'll be able to tell since I'll be staring at you and not flowing. Use inflection or a pause after tags/author names so I know where the tag ends and where the card starts.

Framework: Love a good framework debate, but specific weighing is necessary; an endless back-and-forth of "my framework precludes" without a clear warrant is pretty annoying.

Policy Arguments: Fine, but slow down on author names and tags - especially important if you're reading a 30 second disad with really short cards. Links are important.

Ks: Same as for policy arguments. I don't have that much knowledge of critical authors, so slowing down during dense philosophy is good. Also, if you read a role of the ballot argument and your opponent reads a regular framework, there should be clash there, or at the very least mention of why your role of the ballot is on a higher level than your opponent's framework.

Theory: Fine, slow down during the interp and violation. I assume competing interps/drop the debater absent justification otherwise, but receptive to arguments otherwise. I do not assume RVIs without justification. I don't really have any standard for *~frivolous~* theory, but I'm not super receptive to disclosure theory.

Speaks: I start at a 28 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc.

(this part is stolen from Leora Korn's paradigm)


 * One last note*: I will give extremely low speaks/ reserve the right to vote against any arguments or behaviors that are offensive and bullying in round. Please provide trigger warnings. Please be sensitive to other people’s experiences. Please do not make inappropriate jokes. Please do not be excessively rude in CX. Be nice.