I'm a Manhattan High senior and have been debating for all of high school. I am 100% a flow judge. If you drop something and the other team calls it out, you automatically lose the argument. Please signpost pretty please :))) I'm honestly open to any argument!

CPs- love CPs! I used to run these all the time. The only thing about CP's is that I don't like when they contradict your other arguments. Please have good solvency cards for your CP. Also, please don't run abusive CPs.

DAs- DA's are good. I also love to run these. Try to get a specific link, but if you can't, I'm still down to vote for the DA.

Ks- not my fav arg. I can understand them and will vote on them, but I'm not the biggest fan.

T- love T. If the neg wins on this, they will win the debate. Make sure you extend everything on T.

On case- PLEASE RUN ON CASE. I BEG YOU. When the aff doesn't respond to each argument and you call it out, it is so satisfying. I love on case if you can't tell.

Congress: I'm all about charisma. If you make a good joke, I'll love it. Also, please do not repeat others' points in your speeches. Also, I love neg arguments that attack the mechanisms of the bill/resolution.

I'm a 4x national qualifier in public forum and congress. I'm also a 4x policy and congress state qualifier.

email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Debate - Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed (though I am biased toward slower debates). Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.

I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the obvious exception).

Case

Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.

Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.

DAs

DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.

CPs

Condo is good. If the neg reads 5+ conditional advocacies I'm much more willing to listen to these debates, but I've found I ere neg.

I think judge kick is pretty lazy. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.

T

T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.

Ks

I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.

Kritiks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.

You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.

If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm most willing to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.

K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.

CX

Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.

Other

Things that are good:

Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.

Things that are bad:

Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.

I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.