James,+Braden

I am fine with speed and if you're unclear I will yell slow or clear. My general assumption is that you arrive at the tournament ready to win, so feel free to run whatever argument that you believe you can win. That being said, I am definitely a fan of those who debate positionally. For example if the neg stands up and reads a 4 minute NC 3 minute response to the AC I love to see the 1AR address the two positions and watch the debate unfold from there. That's not to say if the NC stands up and reads 7 minutes of theory and off positions I wont vote on it, I just like watching more clash in a round, and if I see that kind of clash I will be very happy with you.
 * General Comments:**

-First off, I meet and defensive arguments probably wont win you an RVI on theory unless you give me a good reason why it should. That being said I do generally believe that a counter interp with counter standards or turns to the opponents standards do justify an RVI. RVI's on drop the argument are a little sketchy but if you can clearly win that argument then I will listen.
 * Theory:**

- Tell me what to do with theory i.e. drop the debater or drop the argument. And when I say tell me I mean give me an explanation why as well. If you don't I will be forced to either intervene by imposing my own thoughts about theory or just ignoring the shell altogether, either way it will make me upset if you put me in that position so just tell me what to do with the shell.

- Theory should be about in round abuse, I will probably not listen to arguments about your opponent being unfair for going to a big school or for something they ran in previous rounds.

- I do believe that the Aff has a slight disadvantage when it comes to answering theory however it will be difficult to make me vote on a prefer Aff interps debate. You have a better chance at convincing me to prefer your interp for reasons other than the fact you are Aff.

- If you don't go super slow on the interp then I may miss some important rhetoric which could make I meet arguments very easy for your opponent. You've been warned.

My debate team was known for these arguments so I have a lot of experience with them. That means I will hold you to a higher standard when running a kritik. Only run a kritik if you truly understand the arguments.
 * Kritiks:**

- I expect you to clearly state the links, and they better be specific to your opponents case. I will most likely buy no link arguments if your links are weak and generic.

- Kritiks have alternatives. You will have a hard time getting me to vote on a K without one. K alts are an advocacy and should be read slowly in order for me to catch them.

I think these can make for awesome debates and if you are capable of doing clear evidence comparison and weighing then you will be smart to run something like this in front of me (if not, then don't. simple as that).
 * Plans, CP's, Disads:**

- Similar to alts and theory interps, I expect you to go super slow when stating your plan or cp.

- Disads are not exactly and advocacy they are a giant turn so I expect you to make explicit links to some standard just like you would any other turn.

Generally I will give you 28 speaks unless you really impress me. The way to impress me is by creating lots of clash and doing a lot of weighing between arguments. You generally won't get low speaks unless you really make me mad, the way to do that is by acting condescending or being rude to your opponent. I also get frustrated when debaters leave me no clear way to evaluate a round i.e. no comparison between arguments, and not telling me what is the most important and why.
 * Speaks:**