I am a former high school and college debater who is here to make your round as enjoyable as possible. I view myself as tabula rasa and will work as hard as possible to follow any argument you throw my way. Have fun!

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11.

I am currently the policy debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I err tech over truth. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m open to nontraditional arguments and K affs.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

General - I don't like vague plan texts. US and NATO should do cybersecurity is vague. I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaks if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaks. Slow down a little on theory / T shells or at least signpost your standards. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality - Important for limits but I think T and FW abuse is bad for debate. Don't spread like 8 violations. Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - I understand these can be complex topics but I think we can all recognize when the strat is to make it too confusing for the opponent to follow. I need to be able to understand your alt and what you’re trying to accomplish. You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your alt tag without contextualizing or explaining how you functionally access solvency, you don't understand your alt. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I tend to err neg unless you have a specific advocacy for me to endorse. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. I like perms, but you need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse, but I do think spreading 8 off CPs is that. I think I start being open to condo bad around 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I like fiat theory arguments. Especially with some of these ridiculous CPs on the NATO topic. You fiat 29 bilateral agreements?? Come on. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

Framework is important to me, kritiks are not.