TL;DR — Tech > truth. Please don't make me do work. Be nice :)
Background: I debated in public forum for Harker for 4 years. If you have any questions about my preferences listed below, please don't hesitate to ask before the round.
How I vote:
1. I look at the framework debate and consider the offense under the winning framework. Please settle this early in the round if possible.
2. I evaluate the easiest paths to the ballot first. This is where it helps to (1) have a smart strategy throughout the round that makes the narrative easier, and (2) explain warrants well.
3. Weigh. Do as much of this as you can. Clear up the clash on important issues and weigh your impacts, because I will do neither of these for you. Your goal is to make it as easy as possible for me to locate your best path to the ballot, and to essentially write my RFD for me through your weighing analysis. I'll be upset if you make me clear up clash or do my own weighing analysis, and your speaks will decrease even if I vote for you.
4. If the debate is a complete wash, I default to the first-speaking team (not con/squo) because I believe in the structural advantage of the second team.
- Speed. Go for it — I'll be able to follow, but I'll let you know if you aren't clear. If I feel that you're abusing this (think borderline spreading), then I'll lower your speaks but I won't vote against you for it. Clarity and quality of argumentation are always the most important.
- Arguments. Any type of argument is fine as long as it's topical and not blatantly offensive. I try to be tabula rasa, and I might bump up your speaks if you run creative arguments that fit a well-warranted narrative.
- Extensions. All offense you want me to evaluate must be in the summary and the final focus. You can extend terminal defense from rebuttal straight into the final focus and I'll evaluate it, but I still prefer it being in the summary as well. Every extension should include (1) evidence, (2) explanation of warrant, (3) impact, and (4) how I should weigh the argument (especially in the final focus). Clear signposting is critical.
- Evidence. Minimum citation is author and date (institution is also nice). I dislike calling for evidence, but I'll do it if (1) something seems suspicious, or (2) you explicitly tell me to call for the other team's evidence. I'll drop any team with a blatant evidence violation, but if it's something like sketchy debate-math then it's better to just point it out in speech. Have your cards ready: I'll drop a card and lower your speaks if you can't produce it within 2 minutes. Don't call for cards that you won't use. When exchanging evidence, do it right away and don't say "I need my computer to prep."
- Crossfire. I don't evaluate it, so you need to extend concessions in later speeches. Ask real questions and keep answers brief if possible; don't try to fit a new speech or I'll lower speaks.
- Theory. I don't have a nuanced familiarity with theory debates, but I will evaluate it if you overexplain how I should weigh the argument in the round. Generally, all arguments are fair game unless blatantly offensive. If you think an argument is abusive, it's better to explain this to me as a response and I'll weigh the argument less, but I lean away from voting directly off of theory arguments. In short, only run it if you really know what you're doing, and even then, use it with caution.
How to get good speaks (in order):
1. WEIGH. The easier my vote is, the higher your speaks are.
2. Signpost. Make flowing as easy as possible.
3. Have a strong narrative / strategy throughout the round.
4. Bonus: creative arguments, making me laugh.
How to get bad speaks (in order):
1. Be mean to the other team.
2. Do something sketchy with evidence.
3. Abuse crossfire with long speeches instead of questions.
4. Speak quickly to the point of spreading.