Short version: I’m pretty tab, run whatever is comfortable to you. Speaks will be docked for rudeness.
Hello! I was a 4 year policy debater with extensive experience in most major circuits in Texas, and I compete in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State currently, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I am comfortable with whatever you’d like to do. I’m very tab, but if there’s absolutely NO work done towards a rotb or rotj (or theory), then I tend to default to offense/defense. I value pretty much every argument, and (without blatant abuses of this power) I usually go for tech over truth. Here are some more in depth looks at how I evaluate different arguments:
T: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. The clash on T should be heavier in the standards and voters side, rather than the interp/violation. In order to win the T the aff HAS to prove to me exactly why your interp is better, and have pretty heavy ink on the standards and voters, I typically give leniency towards grouping standards like limits and bright line (as they are essentially the same), but dropping the T, or heavily conceding huge chunks of it is pretty much an automatic win for the neg. For the neg to win T, there HAS to be some form of an impact accessed through the voters. Whether that be the fairness of this round specifically, the spillover into the debate community as a whole, a loss of education, etc. Without an impact, I have nowhere to vote. If you run T in the 2nr, it probably shouldn’t be weighed down by other arguments, but that’s ultimately up to the debaters. TVAs are ideal, and RVIs are fine (please give me a good reason to vote on an rvi tho).
DA: disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides), and I’m fine with disads that aren’t terminal. DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense, unanswered defense=a wash unless I’m given a reason to disregard minor defensive drops through impact calc/framing. I’d like to see framework tacked on to the disad if you’re hitting a soft left/k aff, because of you have no framework and they do it’s pretty much an auto loss.
CP: counter plans are great when used with disads/turns/internal net benefits. I’m fine with PICs, and will vote on PICs with only a solvency deficit as the NB if given no other option. I think they’re a super effective tool against the aff, but I'm also definitely ready to hear a good theory round on why PICs are bad (or why whatever method of CP the neg decides to run is bad. I think that "x cps are bad" arguments work best when they are specific to why their CP triggers whatever form of impact you're putting on the theory though).
Theory: you can pretty much copy and paste what I said about T onto here. Theory is a great tool when used legitimately, or just as a way of overloading the aff flow so they have to spend less time on bigger argument in the block. I actively enjoy deep theory debate, but encourage you to stay away from it if it’s not your style.
Framework: This is what wins rounds for me. Any sort of framing of the round helps me write my ballot and establishes what I’m voting for definitively. If you drop framework, you will not win (except in certain circumstances where there’s more pressing arguments). In framework debates, don’t just read cards back and forth at each other, give me reasons why your way of evaluating the round is better, and tell me why I should circle your name at the top of the ballot.
K: I love K debates, but I completely understand if you’re not super comfortable with K. Please don’t just throw in a random K because you think I really like Ks (don’t do that with ANY argument you’re not comfortable with). I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. There HAS to be framework on the K, or you HAVE to prove to me why the alt works better than the aff (or the perm). I think that a 2nr is much more streamlined when you have either the framework or the alt, rather than both (however this is YOUR debate, do whatever is comfortable to you). Crazy Ks are super cool, and fun to run/judge, but if there's not a solid link chain explained then I'm pretty quick to buy into a no link argument on these kinds of Ks.
On Case: should be in every round
K Affs: go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you
Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible. Speed is cool, I’ll say clear if you’re too quick, you should probably slow down on what you want me to write down.
yes, I wanna be in the email chain: email@example.com
Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round.
I don't have a ton of experience in LD, but I know enough to judge. I'm from policy debate, and so I typically get more engaged in progressive LD rounds, but you should 100% run the round how you feel comfortable running it. I know this section of my paradigm is really short, but definitely feel free to ask me questions pre round. Also, speed is fine, and my opinions on off case arguments stay the same between policy and LD, so if you have questions specifically pertaining to that section of debate, scroll up or feel free to ask me pre round.
Just read the LD paradigm and replace "LD" with "PF". I will say "aff" and "neg" to make things easier on me and my flow.