Yes, like Barclay's center

Pronouns: He/Him

Email: barclay.blair@sascholar.org or oddballbfb@gmail.com if there are permission issues (please include me on the email chain I suck at flowing)

Hi there, I am a policy debater currently going to HSLA-Brooklyn, and have debated for 5 years in various styles. I am pretty open to most arguments, and just have fun.

General:

Overall, I think that the norms of debate are constantly changing, and encourage theoretical/meta arguments during the debate round. I really enjoy Ks and theory arguments, as long as they are reasoned out. Generally, tech>truth, but if there is a real violation in the round (full on spreading without sending cards, unlabeled gish galloping, etc.) I am less likely to sway tech, just make sure to call it out in round. Also, please don't misgender anyone within the round, obviously mistakes happen but if it becomes a repeat issue I will have to stop the round. Also if I space out for a minute I'm sorry, I have ADHD and forget to pay attention sometimes (this is also why I request a speech doc lol). One more thing: I request that you don't eat or chew gum during the round, it is very distracting, messy, and disrupts the debate.

Policy:

Tl:dr:

Tech>truth, I am a big fan of theory and ks, just make sure to fully explain everything, and just have fun.

Case:

Please focus on case during the round -- don't let the neg control the round on aff. Make sure to extend your case throughout the round, and I encourage line by line on case.

DAs:

Not too much to say on DAs, they can be really solid if ran well, and really meh if not. Make sure to expand on your link story and establish a solid internal link.

CPs:

I am a pretty big fan of CPs, and think if they are run well, they can easily outweigh the aff. Make sure to clearly establish and extend the net benefits as well as explain why they are competitive. As a note, I probably won't vote on PIC theory off the bat, I think PICs are competitive and interesting, but if it is enough of a violation, I will vote on it.

Ks:

Kritiks are definitely my favorite argument to run in a round, as long as they are done well. I cannot think of a round in the past 2 years where I have not run a K on the negative side, and encourage the use of them. Make sure to fully explain and extend the framework you are going for, don't just say "capitalism is bad for education, aff loses", explain why, and why I should prefer the neg's framework. Also make sure that you explain why the alt works and why it fits under your framework, and don't be afraid to kick it if you are clearly losing that flow. I am most familiar with Cap k, security k, fem k, orientalism k, and a few more. I've seen a lot of anti-blackness, afro-pess, anti-queerness, set col, etc. arguments but have not personally run them, but again, am open to them. (Note: I do not recommend running afro-pess if you are a non-black team).

Topicality:

I am not very big on topicality and think it can fall into the realm of nit-picking a lot of the time but will vote on it if it is a real violation (or they don't respond to it).

Theory:

I am a pretty big fan of theory and think it can be really interesting to talk about the meta side of the debate round. However, please don't call out specific debaters in round; I will stop the round if I believe something offensive was said (also don't hesitate to come to me if you believe so, I might not catch everything) but I hope that's not going to be a problem. Note: I am not a huge fan of disclosure theory, I think on-the-fly prep is a part of debate and we all have access to the internet, but I will vote on it if I think there is a solid violation.

K Affs/Planless affs:

I'm not too familiar with K affs/planless affs, but I am pretty open to round-bending and wacky arguments. Most of what I've run in this realm has been meme-y, but I definitely will vote on both serious and joking K affs. Just make sure to establish framework and tell me why a plan isn't necessary/why we can't run a plan within the resolution.

Spreading:

I'm not a huge fan of spreading personally, but I understand that it is a part of debate and will allow it. However, I have to actually be able to make out what you are saying -- don't just jumble words together. I'm fine with spreading cards, but make sure to slow down for the tagline so I can flow those. Regardless of spreading, I request that you send me documents, but this is especially the case if you are going to spread. Also, if you are going to spread your rebuttals, send me and the opponents a speech document; I won't vote for you if I can make out 3 words in the rebuttal and I certainly won't penalize your opponents if they can't understand it.

CX:

I am a big fan of crossex in policy, and believe it can, at times, be more useful for one side than an entire speech. You can obviously ask questions if you are confused about your opponent's arguments, but I suggest that you use it to poke holes. As for speaks, I will dock speaks if one person is dominating cross, but only if it is a repeat issue, I understand if the other needs to prep. I'm fine with open cross as long as both sides agree, but if there is a maverick in the round, I will let them decide.

PF:

General:

Like I mentioned, I'm not super familiar with PF, but I know the basic rules. As a policy debater, I can't deny that debating about the debate round gets my rocks off, so push the framing of the debate. I will vote on pretty much any [not-awful] framework (util, epistemology, deontology, etc.), just make sure to clearly establish both why that FW should be preferred as well as how your arguments meet that framework. I would also like some in depth resolutional analysis, especially because I am not very familiar with the topic. Contest definitions -- don't let your opponent define things as whatever they want; it's only going to hurt you to not provide counter-defs. Other than that, make sure to clearly lay out your contentions and why I should vote for them over your opponents, and just have fun.

Speed:

For the most part, you can just refer to the spreading section of the paradigm. I understand if you have to speak fast, only having 4 minutes (why policy is better :3), but just make sure I can understand it. Also, same for policy, I'm really awful at flowing by ear, so I do ask that you send me speech documents if you have them.

Crossfire:

A lot of what I said for policy crosses over (pun intended) to PF, I love when one team uses crossfire to poke holes in another's arguments. Please don't speak over each other; it's very annoying, and be respectful. I'm alright with a little sass during cross, but make sure it doesn't get heated/disrespectful.

If you made it this far, congratulations, you'll probably be more prepared for this debate round. Finally,

+0.5 speaks if you bring me a banana