Hello! My name is Alexander and I've been in the debate world for about 10 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I will do my best to evaluate the arguments on the flow. Here are some of my personal likes and dislikes as a judge. I like lots of warrants, clear explanations of arguments, and impact comparison. I dislike frivolous theory arguments, speed for the sake of speed, and claims without warrants. As a debater I competed nearly 100% of the time using kritikal arguments, so feel free to do your thing, as long as you explain why you deserve the ballot and how the other team can engage in your argument.

General: Debate is first and foremost a competitive game.  There are ancillary benefits including the education garnered through prolonged engagement in this activity, etc.-but debate at its core is a game.

- Defense (especially terminal) is underutilized in most debates.

- Demanding texts is absurd-go do policy if you want textual copies of arguments.

- It is common courtesy to give at least one substantive question to the other team.

- Partner communication is fine but could tank your speaks.

- Please don't try and pander to me by reading arguments I read when I competed.

- I really don't like having to vote on Topicality-like, really.

Theory: Theory-based arguments are probably my least favorite subset of arguments in debate. That is to say, all things being equal, I would prefer to hear case debate or a criticism before theory.  I don't need articulated abuse, but I do need substantive explanations of how you've either already been abused or reasons why potential abuse is sufficient enough.  Impact your standards. Read your interpretation slowly and clearly at least twice-have a written copy if necessary.  If debating against critically framed arguments, it would behoove you to include a decision about how your procedurally framed arguments interact with their critically framed arguments.  I default to Competing Interpretations on theory issues unless instructed otherwise.  I also tend to think “Reject the Argument, not the Team” is persuasive aside from the Topicality and Condo debates. Spec is fairly silly, please don't read it in front of me. Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case. 

Case: Being good at case debate is usually a good indicator of your fundamental debate skills.  I appreciate seeing well warranted PMC's with organized and efficiently tagged internal link and impact modules.  For the Neg, I appreciate an LOC that saves time to go to the case and answer the Aff line-by-line.  Impact defense is severely under-utilized in most case debates.  Being efficient with your time will allow you to read strategic offensive and defensive case arguments which gives you more options and leverage for the rest of the debate.

Performance: I find Performance to be a distinct but related category to the K. My partner once ate paper as our advocacy out of the 1AC-at nationals we performed a newscast of the topic.  I am supportive of innovative ways of approaching the topic. That said, a few things to consider:

- You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp).

- Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance.

- Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic.

- Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance.

The K: My favorite subset of arguments in debate.  Criticisms should ideally have a framework (role of the judge/ballot), a Thesis (what your critical perspective is), Links, Impacts, and an Alt with accompanying Solvency arguments.  If you don't have a Thesis page, please make it clear what the thesis of your position is elsewhere.  The best criticisms are directly rooted in the topic literature and are designed to internally link turn common opposition arguments/impacts.  This means your K should probably turn the Aff (if Neg) or internally link turn topic Disads (if Aff).  Reject Alternatives can be done well, but I appreciate Alternatives that are more nuanced.   When reading the K, please highlight the interaction between your Framework and your Alternative/Solvency. These two should be jiving together in order to do what the K is all about-impact frame your opponents out of the round. I don't care very much about your authors but more your ability to take the author's theory and convey it to us persuasively within a given debate round.  Name-dropping authors and books will get you nowhere quick in front of me. The literature bases I am most familiar with are:

- Post-Structuralism

- Critical Race Theory

- Whiteness Studies

- Gender Studies

- Existentialism

- Post Modernism

- Rhetoric and Media Studies

Don't allow this knowledge to be a constraining factor-I love learning about new critical perspectives so don't refrain from reading something outside this lit in front of me.

CP Theory:

- After debating Conditionally for a year and Unconditionally for a year, I found being Unconditional much more rewarding competitively and educationally. Who knows, maybe it was just having Big Cat as a coach.  Either way, I'm fine with one Condo CP/Alt but am open to hearing and voting on Condo bad as well.

- Delay is probably theoretically illegitimate (and just a bad arg).

- Textual Competition is meant to protect against CP's that are blatantly cheater anyways.

- Not the biggest fan of Consult unless there's a particularly strong literature base for it.

- Read your CP text twice slowly and ideally have a written copy.

- PICS are good.

Permutations:

- Always and only a test of competition

- Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K.

- You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits.

- Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.

Speaker Points: I start at a 27 and work up from there generally. The difference between a 29 and a 30 are the following:

- Effective overviews that concisely summarize and contextualize sheets in the debate

- Star Wars references/quips

- Effective use of humor (Stay classy though, San Diego)

- Pausing for Effect

- Comparative warrant analysis: Stuff like, “prefer our uniqueness because it's more predictive-all their depictions of the status quo are snapshot at best” followed by supporting warrants.

- Effective use of Metaphors

- I don't like teams/debaters stealing prep. But let's be blunt, everyone does it, so do it well I suppose.

- Take at least one question in each constructive

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).