Brown,+Derek

=**Derek Brown**=

Background
I am a Senior at Carnegie Mellon studying Computer Science. I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, where I placed 9th at NFLs and attended TOC.

Paradigm (LD)
The most important thing to winning my ballot is **weighing**. I try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible, so in your 2AR/NR you need to explain the layers of the debate and why I should prefer your arguments. If you don't adequately extend or impact an argument, I will have a tough time voting for it. Besides that, I evaluate all arguments on the flow. Below are some considerations:

I read all types of arguments in high school (philosophy, plans, disads, meta standards, etc), so feel free to read what you feel most comfortable with. That said, I especially enjoy nuanced and non-traditional positions (post-modernism, obscure-yet-topical authors, etc), and will reward them with higher speaks. I award speaker points primarily based on organization and strategy. **Please don't ask me to disclose speaks.**
 * //Substance//**


 * //Speed//**
 * I am more than comfortable with speed**, so long as you are clear (and I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't). Please slow down for tags, plan texts, interps, etc.

I see theory as a response to **legitimate abuse**, and have a very low tolerance for abusive arguments (multiple a prioris, PICs, abusive definitions, etc). I default to reasonability on clear-cut abuse, but can be persuaded to evaluate competing interpretations, assuming the abuse is not clear. That said, I do not enjoy watching theory debates, and would much prefer you point out the abuse to me as the judge, and get back to substance.
 * //Theory / Topicality//**

Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks **must link to a practice your opponent performed,** and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round. For that reason, I am most willing to vote on stock, topical kritiks (like neoliberalism, colonialism, biopower, etc).
 * //Kritiks//**

TL;DR
Talk Fast. Weigh. Don't be Abusive.