:D

***Last updated 01/22/24*

4 years of Open Parli Experience, competed in NorCal/SoCal regularly. Champed a few big tourneys and octo’d toc 19.

Structuring case in the order of Uniqueness —> Links —> Internal Links —> MPX ensures it gets flowed most accurately.

My hierarchy of evaluation is Theory>Kritik>Case; convince me in-round if it should be otherwise.

Tabula Rasa

Tech>Truth

I'll accept any argument you choose to run. I flow carefully, signpost clearly and tell me what to flow and where. I won't extend drops automatically.

I have a high threshold for try or die arguments from aff, especially if there's a lot of neg offense.

Rebuttals: I don’t consider it in RFD unless it’s said in rebuttal. Extend everything you're going for. I really need terminalized and at least somewhat quantified impacts to buy impact calc.

(In rebuttals I don’t protect the flow, I don’t like shadow extensions or sandbagging but I’ll flow them unless they get POO’D). Defense from the MO is sticky in the LOR, you only need to extend offense.

The PMR has more room to respond to arguments from the block, but needs to establish offense too. Don't go for everything, it makes it harder to weigh as a judge and you're more likely to yield an unfavorable result if you make me do the work for you.

When kicking/collapsing, do it the right way, extend defense after relieving yourself of any turns or just acknowledge you're dropping it.

If you can’t Delink, Non-unique, or Turn it, outweigh it.

I default prob>reversibility>mag>TF; but idk \_['-']_/

I default neg if there's no impact to clearly vote on an aff hasn't met its burden.

Speed: Don't go above 270 wpm, I don't want to have to clear or slow you. I'm fine with anything under that!

Theory: If you're reading theory make sure to articulate violations clearly and make Apriori arguments, I can't do that work for you. I default to competing interps and I'll pull the trigger on T if you win the flow on it. I tend to give more weight to ground and predictability, but won't make the arguments for it if you don't.

Kritik: If you’re running a critical affirmative, you didn't disclose, and they run disclosure theory, that's not a position you want to be in. For Aff and Neg, when running Ks give specific links and show exactly where/how they bite. Alt solvency needs to be strong, and I'm unfamiliar with most philosopher-based Ks so I'll need a clear thesis to buy it.

Speaks: Better strategic choices = better speaks

Remember: Debate is a game, and the better you play it, the more likely you are to get my ballot. : )

I'll give you flex if you want it

Run what u want. Speed ok. weigh.

bkgrd: former Campolindo debater, won the toc in 2018

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer