Myers,+Mariah


 * Background:**

I debated locally in the San Antonio circuit. I qualified twice in PF for TFA state, once in LD, and qualified for NSDA nationals last year in PF. I've also qualified for CX UIL state for 3 years. I attended camp at UTNIF for LD.


 * Arguments:**

I will evaluate anything you bring to the table. You just have to tell me why. I look at the V and VC as a lens for evaluating all arguments in the debate - meaning that framework debate is important for me and should be focused on heavily. If you win the framework debate, you will most likely win the round. However, keep in mind that I primarily focused on PF in my last years in debate, so you have to explain your framework and warrants within it thoroughly. If I don't understand it, I can't vote on it. Because I did PF, I definitely pref a util evaluation, but again, I will vote off of any warranted arguments you give me. Additionally, PLEASE WEIGH ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Tell me why, despite the different frameworks, your arguments are more important than your opponents'. Because that's kinda what you're supposed to do in debate.

Kritiks - I personally don't like them, and I havent read too much literature regarding them lately so you'll really have to explain in depth what you're arguing or I won't be able to evaluate it.

Disadvantages - I LOVE THEM. I have no problems understanding DA's as long as you have your links well explained.

Counterplans - I personally am not a fan of CP's, although I have ran them and do understand them. If you run a CP, make sure to make clear how it's exclusive and weigh it against the affirmative case. Don't just give me another way to affirm.

Theory - I will vote off of theory if it is properly ran and not addressed by the opponent. However, I don't necessarily like theory that addresses potential abuse rather than existing abuse. If you run potential abuse, you really need to explain why it's important that I vote off of it.

Overall, I definitely prefer on case arguments over off case. I would consider myself a more traditional LD judge.


 * Speaker Points/Speed:**

I can understand very rapid speech. If you're struggling to breathe properly, I probably wont be able to understand you. I will put my pen down and instensely stare at you until I understand you. Understand that if I can't understand you, you will probably lose (since I won't know your arguments) and get bad speaks. Know which parts of your case you can cut so you can speak slower. I prefer a conversational speed, but if you choose to spread at a reasonable rate, I will be able to understand it.

25 - rude/out of line 26 - extremely bad speaking 27 - able to understand less of the time 28 - able to understand most of the time 29 - good conversational speed and articulation 30 - exceptional presentation and voice


 * Other things:**

I don't care about flex prep if both competitors are okay with it. I will potentially ask for evidence at the end of the round. Try to exchange cases and evidence before/after speeches. Not during cross examination. I wont take it off your prep time unless it gets excessive or you're clearly using the time I'm giving you to read instead of dping what you're supposed to. While I don't evaluate cross examination, your behavior in it could potentially impact your speaker points. Additionally, I believe that cross examination is binding, and anything you say in it can be held against you in round.