O'Dwyer,+Shane

I debated for Kempner High School for four years, two years in national circuit LD.

Everyone debates differently, I would rather see you do what you’re best at than try to adapt to my judging philosophy or arguments that I read in high school. That being said, I will vote for any argument that is won. Argument comparison is very important; don’t leave me unsure which framework to evaluate or which arguments are more important than others. I will vote for the person who requires me to do the least work.

Make it clear what your arguments are the first time they’re read; arguments will be disregarded if it's not clear what they are in the first speech.

I have a very low threshold for extensions, it’s much more important that you spend time explaining the implications of your arguments than extending them.


 * Speed** is fine, but slow down on interpretations, taglines, and short analytics. I will say clear/slow a couple of times, but that likely means I already missed something.


 * Theory**: You can use it strategically or to check abuse. I read a lot of theory in high school. I enjoy new approaches to theory and will probably reward you with high speaks if you can utilize novel or interesting theory arguments effectively. I default reasonability, and think RVIs are dumb but am lenient towards granting them in LD, but will not do so automatically. Internal links to voters for common theory standards aren’t necessary. Similarly, neither is reading blatant violations. Fairness is probably a voter.


 * Critical arguments** are fine, and tend to be some of the most interesting to evaluate, as long as you understand the arguments and can explain them when asked. Slow down if you’re reading dense positions.


 * Speaker points** for strategy and efficiency.


 * Making the debate space fell unsafe or hostile will result in low speaks, and may result in a loss.**

Don't hesitate to email me if you have any questions. shaneodwyer214@gmail.com