Massey,+Emily

I did LD successfully for four years on the national and local circuits for Walt Whitman High School in Maryland, graduating in 2010. I now coach at Whitman.

I will vote on any argument on my flow if you win it. Since my principal aim is to avoid intervening, it is very important for you to compare arguments. If debaters are extending arguments for competing claims, I won't do my own comparison between the arguments as long as one of the debaters has explained why I should prefer theirs. E xplaining why I should prefer your argument requires giving some argument for why you are labeling it the way you are. I will not vote for you just because you label every framework argument as "precluding everything else" or every link into fairness as "controlling the internal link," etc. -- this sort of thing does not make you the better debater.

Speed is fine, but SLOW DOWN ON SHORT ANALYTICS, especially interpretations and violations, and complicated cards. I will say "clear" and "slow" if necessary, but that means I already missed something. I won't vote on arguments I didn't hear the first time you made them (except if it's an argument that would have been fine as new in the next speech, such as paragraph theory extended in the 1AR, but in that case I'll listen to new 2N responses if I didn't hear it in the AC). This is the only way I know to be fair to your opponent, who is expected to answer the argument, and to make sure you actually made the argument initially. I'll make some sign if you're extending an argument I don't have, like stopping flowing and putting my hands up. This isn't usually an issue, but if there's some short spike that's crucial to your strategy, you'd do best to slow down when reading it it and look up as you extend it.

I have a very low threshold for warrants in extensions. I don't need to hear you reiterate arguments I already heard in your previous speech, unless this is necessary to answer one of your opponent's responses. I'd much rather you spend that time explaining the impact and how it interacts with your opponent's arguments. I also don't need to hear you extend an interpretation in a theory shell or a plan or counterplan text.

I don’t presume either way absent presumption arguments made by the debaters – I’ll vote for the side that requires me to do less work. Speaks based on strategy, efficiency, and argument quality.