Midway '20 / BYU '24
TFA, UIL, NSDA, NDCA debater; first year judge
add me to the email chain - email@example.com
Debated all 4 years, qualified for TFA/UIL state 3 years, NSDA 2 years.
Generally tech over truth
I want to call myself a tab judge who acknowledges that biases exist. Feel free to run whatever you want so long as it's explained and debated well. My place in the debate is as an observer to in-round information; that being said, understanding of the world is limited and often skewed.
-Don't run it as a time skew. If you run it, I want to see it extended to the rebuttals at least, and I want to see a clear violation.
-I'm a fan of legal/textual precision - run T if there are technical aff mistakes
-For voters, I don't regularly buy in-round abuse. Limits/ground/education is the easier argument to win and normally just makes more sense.
-Otherwise, I default to reasonability. Prove a violation or there isn't one
-Assume I know nothing about your case. I probably do, but I like explanation.
-pls understand your case, if you fall apart in cx you lose a lot of ethos.
-no underview; overview should be <20 seconds [assuming your 1AC was adequate lol]
-prefer an LBL in the order of the 1NC case args but honestly idc
-Framing: preempts are ok but unnecessary, I probably default to a deontological standard (which isn't really saying much)
-Performance, narratives, etc: all cool. I give them weight in the debate space because they're still debate arguments. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key. FW debate is real important to me, and be prepared to defend switch side debate.
-UQ controls DA, if you run a long link chain scenario w old ev I'll probably not buy it
-I like good impact debate
-Pretty simple, prove competition with the aff + net benefit or I won't buy
-Probably won't vote on theory args here unless it's blatant, affs are better off attacking solvency mechanism of the CP in my book
-Debate the K's thesis as it applies to the topic/aff. Give me a specific link, I don't really vibe w teams who just run the same neg strat w generic parts
-I should see a well-explained alt solvency mechanism. Give me an alt that actually defends something or I probably won't vote.
-Again, I love a good FW debate, have a good interp about the ROB, otherwise it's just to vote up the better debater lol
-Well versed in biopolitics, setcol, cap, afropessimism, and neitzsche. Run whatever, but anything (especially lit heavy things) should be explained thoroughly.
-You can ask about specifics but my general answer is please don't.
-Aspec is dumb unless they really don't specify in plan text (cx probably checks)
-I probably won't vote on condo, 99% of the time just whiny debaters haha
-I think I said this already but potential abuse isn't a voter
-Speed is fine, but if you're debating online, clarity above anything else. I won't flow things I can't hear or understand.
I'll say/type clear twice in the event that your spreading is messy.
-Points are awarded for good clash, quality arguments, efficiency, judge direction, impressive cross-x, and for being an effective speaker. Try to make this interesting for me. The medium is the message; you have a better chance of winning if you phrase your argument in a professional/enjoyable manner.
-I'll typically award at least 28 speaks unless you're blatantly rude, apathetic, or otherwise disturbing the debate space. Racism/misogyny/homophobia/any other kind of discrimination is grounds for 0 speaks.
-Mark your own cards and be ready to clarify where they were marked
-I used to run spark and wipeout a lot, so I vibe w impact turns when they're ran well
-Email me w any questions, I'll typically get back to you within 24 hours
note: treating me as a lay judge in LD is not a terrible idea. I have debated and judged LD in a limited capacity, and I am fairly well-versed in LD, but it is probably a safe bet to overexplain everything.
thanks for actually reading this! if you did feel free to let me know and I'll probably see you as a more responsible debater haha