Etiquette:

Timing: Please time yourselves. I will also keep my own timer running but I would prefer to focus on your words rather than the time. Depending on the event, I will cut you off right after the grace period.

Camera: Please turn on your camera. I completely fine with your camera being off during prep time or before the round starts, but once your time starts, turn on your camera. Additionally, notify me if you have any tech issues, I'll try to adjust things to make your experience better.

I prefer that you stand up for your speeches. I understand that some of you can't, which is completely fine--just notify me of your issues.

For Speech:

Extemp:

I vote on the clarity of a speech. Please be transparent about your position, topic, and contentions. You can accomplish this by 1. Signposting (physically or verbally), clearly stating your position, points 1, 2, and 3. Enunciate your words and make sure that there is variety in your tone and speed, it will indicate what I need to focus on. Hand gestures are nice, but not necessary.

Please use sources, state them clearly and tell me how they tie into your speech. I don't completely judge off of sources but please give me real facts. Running off of one or two sources isn't enough. Throughout the speech, make sure you're clearly linking back to the question. If it's a why question, make sure you're telling me why.

Obviously, answer the question. Don't dance around both sides of the argument, state your position and stick with it. Tell me clearly what your conclusion is with the evidence you have.

Oratory/Info:

Organize your speech. I will focus on the information and body of your speech. I will be looking for the establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over-exaggerated. Please go over why I should care.

For Debate:

I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

Please signpost every one of your arguments. Make sure I know what you're talking about.

BE RESPECTFUL, YOU WILL LOSE IF YOU DON'T DO SO.

tech> truth, i'll vote on anything as long as it's not offensive and is

• extended in both back-half speeches
• frontlined
• weighed

defense is not sticky

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

speed is fine - send doc if reading 230wpm+

Collapse in the back half

warranted analysis> unwarranted cards

No new args in final

signpost

make weighing interactive - comparative and meta weighing>>>

if you read any prog arg at the 12/8 mdl +1 speaks

ask question & add me to the chain: sadiewolf19@gmail.com