Last changed on
Tue November 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM PDT
Yes, I would like to be included in the email chain: email@example.com
High School: Traditional LD with Granada Hills Charter
College: Policy with California State University, Northridge
Coaching: Traditional and Circuit LD at Granada Hills Charter, Public Forum at Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
Background: Since I did traditional LD in high school, almost all of my circuit knowledge comes from policy debate. I mostly read K's in Policy.
- Don't be rude.
- Don't be someone who advocates for discriminatory or harmful positions.
- I'm not omniscient.
- Clarity is one of the most important things for me in a round.
- I used to be completely tech>truth, but tricks and friv theory are pushing me to a more techy truth approach.
- You have absolutely no right to personally attack your opponent in ANY way.
- I usually see myself giving 27.5-28.5 on average. I tend to give one 30 out per year.
- I'm pessimistic about the future of debate mainly because competitors do not bother to explain anything to the judge and they treat the judge as if they're an idiot for not knowing something. Taking the time to break away from your script to explain something to me is something I look forward to.
- I'm generally fine with any T/FW arguments you decide to run as long as they're ethical. Warrant your interps and counterinterps well. I like to see good clash with T/FW. In other words, actually interact with your opponent's claims.
- I absolutely love K debate. I am mostly familiar with forms of Cap: HMA, Neolib, Orthodox Marx. I've done some performance with Genocide Trivialization (if you're interested in this, just let me know. I could rant about this for hours).
- I am really interested in identity politics, but I don't feel comfortable voting for debaters that don't identify with their K and simply use it as a tool to win. Otherwise, I'm all for hearing identity politics and performance.
- Please actually be knowledgeable about the lit you're citing.
- I'm down for PIKs
- I believe TVA is a strong argument against K Aff's.
- I will evaluate and vote off of PoMo, but I am not the most knowledgeable in this area.
- If you are going to run something that is high theory: Zizek, Delueze & Guattari, Derrida, Baudrillard, Agamben, etc., please explain it to me like it's not high theory. In other words, explain it to me like I'm five.
- My only request here is that YOU do all of the link work for me. I will not fill in gaps for you.
- A conceded DA will usually never look good for you.
- Net Benefit, net benefit, net benefit
- Don't drop the perm. I would like to see actual interaction with the perm.
- I don't mind PICs
- I'm not a fan of frivolous theory by any means. (Highlighter, Brackets, Shoes, etc.)
- I believe that theory should be used as an actual check against abuse in round.
- I don't mind "X" argument bad arguments. (Condo, PIC/PIK's, etc.)
- Otherwise, explain theory clearly and simply to me.
- Don't like them, but will vote on them if it comes to that unfortunate scenario.
- Try actually engaging with the round rather that doing this.
- Both sides, DO NOT drop the case.
- Aff, I think it's super important to hammer down on the fact that the case stands through. Too many debaters spend too much time on off cases and leave their case in a very vulnerable position.
- Responding to the case is a MUST. If you're a K debater, it's not mandatory for me but it will convince me to vote for you even more if you are able to pull direct rhetorical links from the AC.
- Please feel free to ask me any questions after I give my RFD.
- It's very possible that you do not agree with my, or any other judges', interpretations in a round you lost. This DOES NOT give you the right to yell at your judge or the competitor.
- If you have any other questions after the round, please feel free to email me.
- I am fine with spreading.
- Slow down for tags and authors.
- DO NOT spread if your opponent is not okay with spreading.
- I vote off of a general offense/defense paradigm and use cost/benefit framework. However, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to have another FW in round.
-I expect arguments to be extended through summary to final focus if you intend on winning off of them. I don't have specific preferences for PF besides these, so if you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.