Anderson High School former debater/speecher class of 23

fighting Texas Aggie class of 27

mid extemper, qualified for state and toc and nats in extemp since someone thought I was ok I guess.

extemp is a speech event, I care more about presentation than facts (still shouldn't make too much stuff up though).

You can talk me up when you enter the room, kind of curious what it feels like to be on the other side of it. Won't help rankings though.

I like horses.

Have fun and don't panic :)

Anderson 25 | he/him | lukeschooler512@gmail.com

General:

---ill vote on anything (except speaks theory) - the quick prefs are ranked based on my confidence in judging, not personal bias

---i dont like dogmatic judging so ill try to be flow

---maybe dont go top speed

Quick Prefs:

1---k/tricks/theory

3---phil, larp v larp

Anderson '25| TOC Quarterfinalist '24| He/Him

As a debater, I read the Kritik primarily. I feel comfortable evaluating any type of round, but clean debating will make your path to the ballot infinitely easier.

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

I am willing to vote on anything as long as it does not make the round actively hostile or is racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic etc. I will only look at my flow when rendering a decision, meaning I look at words said in the round and will not do extraneous work to fill in gaps in terms of argumentation.

Fairness----------X---------Clash

Theory-------X------------Competition

Policy affs-------X---------Planless affs

Competing Interps--X-----------------Reasonability

Insert rehighlightings--X----------------No rehighlightings

Plan text in a vacuum----X---------------Positional competition