ABOUT ME

I debated in PF for Poly Prep in Brooklyn NY. I was pretty good.

FLOW NITPICKS

The second rebuttal should respond to all offense on the flow. I prefer second speaking teams also respond to terminal defense/overviews, but defense won't count as dropped until after summary.

Turns not extended into summary become defense, unless your opponent extends through it. In that case, it's offense again.

I don't flow author names. Refer to the arguments.

I default neg on BOP positive statement resolutions.

Overviews.

For second speaker teams; if your overview could easily have been a contention, I already hate it. When flowing on my laptop, I will literally not have a place to flow it - nor will I make one. Second rebuttal case turns should either a) respond within the framework debate or b) signpost to relevant links in case.

First speaking teams; go nuts.

Advocacies, Plans and Fiat Power In PF.

"I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine" - Caspar Arbeeny. Inherency is always better than fiat. Conditional advocacies are bad. "We kick out" never removes a turn, but speech time to de-link yourself from a turn can.

If you have any qualms, questions or concerns about my preferences, please do not hesitate to inform me. There is no penalty for trying to change the way I view debate.

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

• Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
• Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
• Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
• Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
• Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
• Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
• Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
• Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
• Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
• Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
• Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
• Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
• Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
• Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

• One team tells me to.
• I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
• I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
• I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

As a former participant and coach, I've judged hundreds of rounds. As a New Yorker, I can handle some fast talking. And as a professional speechwriter, I'm paying attention to how your speeches are organized to present the arguments and responses efficiently and effectively, and how well competitors are listening to each other (including their partners) to advance the debate. For partners, that means building off of each other, rather than simply repeating the same points, always connecting back to the resolution and why each argument is important. I appreciate when teams can focus on the most important aspects of clash, and am listening for depth rather than breadth (more substance, fewer stats without implications), and for teams that can convey their understanding of a complex topic in a simple way that others can understand too. The skills I learned from this activity and still use in my job: Clarity, precision and persuasion, thoughtful repetition, organization, an understanding of the audience, and engaging presentation. By the end of the round, you should clearly answer the question why your side should win, based on everything that's come up.

Not very picky as to what arguments are used, just please do not spread (no speed reading please). 

Judging LD I look for framework arguments above contention arguments, and I'm fine with logical arguments. 

Judging PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it. 

Always looking for good sign posting and clash, please don't forget about your opponent's side of the flow. 

About Me

i debated for four years in high school public forum and one year in college parliamentary. i was on the national circuit for all four years.

Judging Philosophy

i flow.

i do not intervene- you could literally say that the sky is bright red and i won't correct you.

something i see a lot among current debaters debating in front of former debaters who don't coach or didn't work at a camp is that they assume that we know everything about the topic. this is a grave error. i have little to no understanding of the topic or the current debate meta, especially in the first few rounds of a tournament. i can understand the debate on a technical level perfectly fine, but don't expect me to make logical leaps for you based on information that is common knowledge on the topic.

i want an easy ballot. i will vote on arguments that are clear and portrayed as important in the second half of the debate. furthermore, i would prefer that you use the second half of the debate, especially the final focus, to analyze the clash in the round and explain why you come out on top. this should come naturally if you are weighing effectively.       

Preferences

weigh.

you do not need defense in first summary.

don't ask for evidence unless you suspect that they are misrepresenting a card. confusion about a card can be cleared up in crossfire.

don't ask before the round, "what can I do to get a 30?". i have never seen that work. 

Speakers Points

i default 28. argumentative skill, clever strategy, and conciseness are what will get you a 30. rudeness, disrespect, or general foolishness will get you a 26 or less. 

i appreciate humor.

i find the cx is key to getting high speaker points, especially among lay judges. in my opinion, to be the best debater in cx you want to be dominate without coming off as rude. 

if you flip the meta i will give you a 30.  

if you happen to be debating a team that you think is much better than you and I happen to be the judge (or even if i'm not and you just happen to be reading my paradigm), I want to let you in on a secret. anyone can beat any team. it doesn't matter how many bids they have, how many tournaments they have won, or how well known they are around the circuit- if you out debate them, you will win. the most important skill in debate is by far self-confidence. i've seen well-known teams win with shitty arguments because lesser known teams walked into the debate thinking they were gonna lose. you have to believe in yourself if you want a judge to believe your arguments. i want to make it clear that i don't want to discourage you from debating if you don't have that self-confidence as of right now- it's a much a learned skill as flowing, weighing, or arguing. in high school, i would get extremely nervous in round, especially if we were hitting a team that we thought was better than us. i would convince myself that we were going to lose before i even read our case. but after debating every weekend, cutting many cards, and writing many cases I slowly realized that I had improved substantially and the only thing holding me back was myself. even though i wasn't the best debater when I realized this, having confidence in myself allowed me to improve substantially more by taking risks i never would have dared take before. and slowly but surely, our results started to improve until people were scared to debate us. in some respects, to be good at debate you have to fake it till you make it. so to the teams who will go 2-4 this weekend, take it from someone who was in your shoes- you can win this round.  

I am okay with spreading (speed reading), and I look to see who proved their point better during the round, but while trying to attack their opponents points as well. Do not forget your opponents side of the debate while trying to prove your own.

I want to make sure everyone is curteous and respectful as they debate against one another.

While I understand the need to crush the opponenent, there does not need to be any overly rude behavior when doing so.

I'm a former competitor and mother of a child participating in POI. I'm a College Professor and have experience judging most speech events. I rank based on the successful completion of each event's elements, originality, structure, content (including the quality and reliability of your evidence), and your delivery (articulation, voice modulation, etc). I appreciate clarity and clear markings for the judge. I believe in inclusivity and diversity in forensic experiences, and therefore won't be taking into account your surroundings or the quality of video.

Good Luck!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013 and I do flow.

State the resolution (amazing how many forget to). I like frameworks but they're not musts. Introduce important acronyms.

When it comes to evidence, I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources ("Smith of Harvard" doesn't tell me much) and how the evidence supports your claim. I will ask to see evidence if I sense it's been misused.

Please weigh in summary and especially final focus.

Speak clearly. I'm not a fan of spreading.

Current senior at Princeton, debated PF at Regis.

1. Try to speak slowly and clearly.

2. If you win on the flow, you will win the round.

3. Please weigh for me in your final speeches.

4. Be respectful during crossfire.

5. Respond to all arguments in rebuttal/summary; extend your most important arguments through to summary and final focus.

6. In final focus, focus on one or two main arguments that you win and explain why those are the most important.

LD PARADIGM FOR RIDGE

General things:

• Ignore my pf paradigm. My desire to not be annoying is more important to me than my personal views on debate, so where possible, I'll stick to LD community norms rather than impose my own pfey preferences on you. 
• I am an ex pfer who hasn't judged LD before.
• This means that I'm not going to be able to understand your top speed. I'm somewhere between a typical pfer and a typical lder in my ability to understand speed. In my experience, when debaters are spreading extemporaneous arguments I can usually understand them. The speed at which lders tend to read prewritten stuff and cards though is probably out of my league. Basically, you don't need to treat me like a parent judge but don't go at your top speed and I'll say clear as many times as necessary. Err on the side of slowness. SLOW DOWN ON TAGS.
• This also means that clear explanations are important. You are way more likely to win a round by picking one argument to collapse to and explaining its structure and implications for me very clearly than you are to win off a bunch of blippy extensions.
• Do weighing and explicit argument comparison for me. Write my ballot. Otherwise, I'm going to have to do the argument comparison myself and since I'm not experienced with LD you probably won't like the results.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES

• A vanilla plan, counterplan, DA debate is probably the style of argument that I'm most comfortable with, so larp to your heart's content. I'm more than happy to vote for other arguments but these are going to be the easiest arguments for me to evaluate.
• I think condo bad is probably true but my preference for avoiding intervention means I'm willing to let this debate unfold on its own.
• Slow down for plan texts.
• In pf, I think most politics DAs are stupid so I'm probably going to find politics DAs stupid in LD too. My threshold for treating responses to these DAs as terminal defense is probably going to be really low. 
• Oddly enough, the type of argument that I'm second most comfortable evaluating is theory and T. IGNORE MY PF PARADIGM, the pf community is way different and thus the way I would evaluate theory in a pf round is really different. 
• Types of theory that I don't like: frivolous theory to pick up a round against a less experienced opponent, random spikes which didn't have clear implications when they were first read.
• I really like disclosure, I'll be receptive to disclosure theory unless its against a clearly way less experienced opponent.
• SLOW DOWN ON STANDARDS AND INTERPS
• You need to clearly check for abuse in cross.
• I default drop the argument and reasonability, but these are just defaults, not preferences. 
• On topicality, I default drop the argument as well.
• I'm willing to vote off an RVI especially if I think the initial shell was stupid. Just be very clear with your abuse story, tell me what you could have done had you not been forced to waste time on theory. 
• Framework: I have a decent understanding of super vanilla philosophy like Kant, Rawls, etc. Denser philosophy might be tougher for me, so just slow down and be clear with your explanations. Apply the framework to your arguments for me, don't make me try and do that myself.
• Kritikal stuff: Most post fiat Ks should be fine for me to handle. I'll vote for a pre fiat K if it's explained clearly to me, but I won't be super familiar with this type of argument. 
• I'm vaguely familiar with some popular authors like Baudrillard and Wilderson, but I haven't really had experience with them in a debate context so clear explanations are important. Simpler things like security Ks should be fine for me. I'm probably never going to understand Deleuze so just don't even bother.
• Probably the most important thing when running something kritikal is a clear explanation of any ROTB arguments. Tell me what decision I'm making and why. 
• My only other personal preference is that I'd really prefer it if your alt was more developed than "reject the aff". If that's your alt, you need to be very clear about why rejecting the aff matters and why I'm voting for the K. 
• I default theory before K.
• If your favorite Kanye album is Graduation, I'll be able to tell and I'll drop you. 
• Don't wear fedoras.

PF PARADIGM

Short Version:

• I'm a flow judge
• If it's not in summary I'm not voting on it
• You are more likely to win if you collapse to a single well warranted argument than if you try to win off a bunch of blippy extensions
• Weigh your arguments with explicit comparisons and warrants that are more developed than "lives are the most important".

Long Version:

Random things:

• I did PF for 3 years on the circuit and would like to think I was fairly decent. I currently dabble in NPDA parli so I have some experience with more progressive arguments.
• I can handle speed except for the fastest spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast or not enunciating.
• If you're funny I'll like you
• It's almost 2k17 people, match your belts with your shoes, don't wear fedoras, and can we PLEASE stop with the black shirts. This isn't a voting issue for me, just a personal plea.
• If your favorite Kanye album is Graduation, I'll be able to tell and I'll drop you. 

Interventionism:

• I am very tab in most cases. I am willing to evaluate any argument and will generally buy what you say until told otherwise. The burden is on your opponent to respond to your arguments. That said, if an argument blatantly has no logical flow, I won't evaluate it.
• I am very not tab when it comes to evidence. If I am familiar with the card you're reading and I think you're misrepresenting it, I will call for it and be very unhappy. 
• If you are inconsistent about what your evidence says, I will call for it at the end of the round.
• If your opponents tell me to call for your evidence, I will call for it at the end of the round.
• I am very interventionist when it comes to theory. I will explain this more later. 

Round Flow:

Case:

• Please make sure your framework is actually doing something in the round and is warranted. Please number and structure things.

Rebuttal:

• Logic is way more important than reading me a bunch of cards. Explain how your arguments are interacting with your opponent's case. If you're reading a card, it should serve a purpose like providing empirical evidence of something you've argued will logically happen.
• If you are doing something weird or are reading overviews that you want to be flowed in a specific place, please do give me an off time roadmap
• I really like overviews when they're done well. I like good terminal defense and case turns to be labeled as such and read as an overview.
• I really like it when you give me and overview that lays out a weighing mechanism that you'll use throughout the round, as long as the weighing mechanism is well warranted. 
• If you like reading very offensive, borderline disadvantage style overviews, be careful. I think this is ok in first rebuttal, but not ok in second rebuttal because it abuses the fact that first speaking team has a ton to cover already in summary with way less prep time.
• Weighing. Do it. This is more than just "lives are the more important than anything else" and "our number is bigger than their number". Give me susbstantial reasons why one type of impact matters more than the other.
• Please label turns as such or I will not evaluate them as offense.
• Please don't label defensive arguments as turns, or I will be annoyed and dock speaker points.

Summary: 

• I like summaries that are structured around voters. These should ideally then carry over into final focus.
• Please please please collapse in summary, don't try and extend every argument.
• Don't extend through ink.  
• I like overviews in summary, preferably the same ones that were in rebuttal though you can and should drop the ones that aren't relevant to your current strat. 
• Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not. Both summaries have an obligation to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

Crossx

• I will write down things that I think might be important to the round that happen in cross, but I won't treat them as part of the flow. If you want me to vote off of something that happened in cross, you need to extend it into a speech.
• Don't be mean or overly aggressive. Let your opponent speak. Your speaks will not be pretty otherwise.

Final Focus

• Give me very specific voters that were brought up in summary. These should provide the structure of your speech. Do not try and address every argument in the round. Instead, explain how the specific voter you've picked interacts with the big issues in the round and why it wins you the round. Weighing is crucial.
• Voters should be more specific than just contention tags.  
• Second FF needs to extend defense on the voters read in first FF. 
• First FF should also extend defense on the voters brought up in second summary. If second summary didn't specify voters and instead just kind of rambled on about the round, I'm more lenient about this and you don't have to worry as much about extending defense. 

Fiat:

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.  

Theory:(this section is really long and probably irrelevant to most rounds, so ignore it unless you're planning on running theory. tl dr, make reasonable, well warranted arguments and don't be annoying)

• I think theory is a very important and useful tool to decide how debate should work given that the rules for PF are pretty minimalist and norms are changing all the time. 
• I don't think theory is new to PF. What people in PF call framework is more often than not an argument about topicality or how the round should work. The teams that ran these arguments the most successully often used theoretical justifications to warrant their arguments.
• That said, I reallly DO NOT like theory as it is currently used sometimes in other formats of debate: as a strategy to win rounds, especially against less experienced opponents who might not be as familiar with norms regarding theory.
• Theory should never be your strat. You should go into the round with a legitimate way to win and then run theory if there is a legitimate need for it to check abuse or clarify something in a round.
• Given those beliefs, here's how I think theory should function.
• You don't need to have an explicit shell structure, but your theoretical arguments about what is or isn't acceptable should still be justified by a standard like predictability or equality of ground with a link to a voter like fairness or education even if you don't necessarily use all the jargon.
• When it comes to topicality, I tend to prefer arguments that go back to the resolution and focus on how the resolution would realistically be interpreted by an educated citizen. Weird squirrelly interps of the resolution that are justified because they are marignally more fair are not my favorite. 
• You need to very clearly check for abuse in crossfire.
• I am not tab when it comes to theory. If I think your interpretation is dumb, that your opponents meet your interpretation, or that you didn't actually check for the abuse, I will not vote on theory.
• I evaluate under reasonability. This is not a preference, this is what I will do. I think competing interps leads to a race to the bottom where people try and win rounds by reading marginally better interps than their opponents, which eventually kills any real chance of a substantive debate especially given the short speech times of PF.
• You need to make a very strong argument about severity of abuse to get me to buy drop the debater arguments. If I think your opponents are being intentionally abusive and understand what's happening, I'm more likely to buy these types of arguments. If they just seem confused and don't really get the theoretical implications of what they're running, I'll probably just drop the argument.
• Responses to theory don't necessarily need to follow some sort of structure, but if they do that's also cool. As with everything, just be logical and warrant your arguments. 
• I can be convinced to vote on an RVI, though I doubt this will ever come up in a PF round. 

Please make sure to speak clearly, it allows for easier interpretation of arguments and support

Make sure that you bring supporting evidence with your arguments, especially main contentions

When refuting your opponents points, make sure to give a clear description of what is the flaw in their position. If you can support your own counterpoint with more evidence, it makes your counterpoint strong. Contending points is one of the best ways to eliminate your opponents main points. Keep in mind you should challenge their points directly, make the connection that your points have more magnitude or scope, and really focus on solidifying your position in summary.

- Be respectful

- Don't break debate rules

- Speak as fast or as slow as you like

- Voting points are extremely important at the end - tell me why you won and the other team did not

- Most important: I judge based on how well debaters know their cases, the topic, and how well they argue against their opponents' cases

ask before the round if you feel inclined to 

I did PF for 4 years at Byram Hills. My paradigm's pretty simple:

- Collapse and weigh at the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument please do the work for me and tell me why. Do not try to extend everything.

- Any and all offense you want me to consider needs to be in BOTH summary and final focus, including turns. That being said, DON'T extend through ink.

- No, I don't require defense in summary, but I strongly suggest it, especially for second speaking teams. I would also really prefer extensions of defense in first summary IF the second rebuttal frontlines case.

- On that note, I think it's probably strategic for second speaking teams to frontline in rebuttal, but I don't require it.

- I won't call for evidence unless it's been contested in the round and I'm told to call for it, so if your opponents miscut something TELL ME and I will call for it.

- Roadmaps aren't necessary. Definitely sign post though.

- Speed is fine, but please don't spread - clarity is a requirement for me to be able to judge.

- I am old and never debated progressive arguments myself, so if you want to run Theory or Ks you need to explain them really well. If these types of arguments are run properly in front of me and not adequately responded to, I will vote for them. That being said, I don't want to hear a full T shell, and Ks need a role of the ballot argument.

Be nice! Have fun! Talk pretty!

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.