Armitage,+Dan

UCLA '20

__//*Note: if I have judged you before, you should go through my paradigm again, since it has substantially changed since you last debated in front of me*//__


 * UPDATE: My threshold for speed has gone down significantly as I am no longer debating or watching a lot of rounds. I am not familiar with the arguments and common cards on this topic. If I look confused, its because I am. Adjust accordingly.**

__TLDR__: I have no predispositions as to what I'd like to see; just do what you do best. Be able to warrant and impact your argument, and explain how it functions in the round. The beginning of the NR/2AR should be dedicated to an overview where you discuss what you're winning and why. What you say in this overview should be what I write on my ballot for my RFD. **I have bolded the things you probably need to know if it's right before the round**.

__Speed__: Please **slow down substantially (like conversational speed) for plan texts/theory interps/tags and cites/dense analytics/anything else you want me to catch word for word** on my flow. **I dock points if I have to tell you to change your speaking style more than twice**. I haven't been researching, flowing, nor listening to a lot of rounds within the past year, so PLEASE **build up to your top speed instead of going top speed right out of the gate. Tbh, I'd say go about 70% of whatever your top speed is, and again, slow down to emphasize the important things on the flow**

__FW__: Yeah go for it. Just keep in mind I wasn't a much of a fw debater so please err on the side of overexplanation when explaining your framework justifications. I have some basic familiarity with the common stuff, but **just because I have some background knowledge in philosophy doesn't mean I am familiar with YOUR particular framework or its implications, so please explain your arguments well**. I do enjoy listening to a good, well explained fw debate. Unless you're reading one of the various recycled util justifications (Woller, Cummiskey, etc) you should probably read the framework more slowly than the offense.

__K's__: I like them but **err on the side of overexplanation**, especially if you're reading some dense lit. **Be very clear about the alt and how it functions**. I understand the more common stuff (fem, cap, Asian Am lit,, etc) but unless you can explain your super dense k lit (since I'm not very well read in it) to me like I'm 5, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

__Theory__: I hate frivolous theory and it can confuse me when it gets messy (as it often does). **I am NOT good at evaluating extremely fast theory args (or most theory args for that matter), so go slower (like literally half your normal speed) on theory than on the rest of your arguments**. I really like when debaters read just one or two standards and spend a lot of time going in depth and weighing those standards instead of reading a shitstorm of blips. I prefer theory to be in an organized shell. **I'm not afraid to say that I voted on presumption if you make the round too messy and neglect giving me a clear way to vote. I won't vote on theory based on an out-of-round violation that I can't verify.** Do not read an outrageously stupid theory shell. OCI's aren't a thing; read an RVI. I also LOATHE when people read theory against stock, whole res Affs or extremely predictable plan affs on a topic (ie the IPV aff on the handguns topic). Just engage with the aff. I'm okay with theory when there is clear abuse, and actually quite like when debaters initiating a theory arg can demonstrate a clear, IN-ROUND abuse story (this is a roundabout way of saying I'm not a big fan of potential abuse arguments). Here are my defaults if nothing is argued otherwise, which I really really think you should do:
 * Drop the arg
 * No RVI's
 * Spirit over text of the interp
 * Fairness > Education
 * I'll evaluate on reasonability
 * Theory before the K

__T__: I believe that **the Aff has a burden to be at least somewhat topical. What that means is up for debate**. As long as you can prove a link to the res in some way, read whatever you want. **Pls slow down a lot when reading T, I don't flow well and this problem gets worse with long, complex T shells**.

__Spikes__:
 * Keep them all in one place. I despise theory arguments that are just hidden in random parts of the flow** (for example, reading theory spikes between cards in the contention level). I will not catch it, and if I do, don't expect me to vote on it.

__Presumption__: If truth testing whole res: I presume aff If reading a plan aff: I presume neg when they defend the squo, but if neg defends a K and/or CP, presumption goes back to the aff These are not set in stone. If you actually plan on going for presumption in the NR/2AR, please READ PRESUMPTION ARGUMENTS.

__Plans:__ Cool

__DA's:__ Great.

__CP's:__ Fine with me. It (they) should be competitive.

__Tricks__: I'm fine with tricks, but they are kinda dumb and can be easily defeated substantively imo (though I still like contingent standards for some reason). At the very least, please make sure that the conclusion of the extended trick is related to/logically follows the initial argument made in the AC/NC. In other words, just try to make sure your tricks aren't too stupid. Clever a prioris/prestandards are entertaining, just make sure you justify WHY they come before the rest of the substance in the debate.

__CX__:
 * CX is super important to me, and I do listen closely**. **I'm ok with flex prep if that means that you ask questions in CX. I am NOT okay with adding your remaining CX time to your prep time.**

__Flashing__:
 * Don't take too long.** If you are going to start an email chain, add me pls: danarmitage1898(at)gmail.com

__Additional Details:__
 * I am tired
 * I like sassiness and general shadiness, but don't be a total douche.
 * Update: Good use of drag race quotes boost your speaks

I can't think of anything else to add rn, but feel free to ask any other questions you have before the round. :)