hey, I'd love to answer any question or give constructive feedback about my decisions if I didn't get to on your ballot! please email me at mckinneycrawford18@gmail.com and I'm sorry in advance for not getting to your ballot on time ><

Please no spreading. If I cannot hear and understand you, especially due to speaking too fast, I cannot give you the win.

Additionally, PFD and LD are two different types of debate. LD is based on morality/ philosophy. PFD does not require a value/criterion, nor does it require a plan/counter-plan. Please ensure that your constructive and cross examinations reflect these differences prior to entering the round.

TL;DR:

If you have technological constraints that preclude any of the following standards inform me and I will ignore it when considering speaker points. If there is no sufficient explanation and these standards are not met it will be reflected in speaker points.

Email and SpeechDrop are the two acceptable mediums for sending speech documents. NSDA DocShare is only acceptable if some parties use an email chain and include the NSDA DocShare's 'email' on that chain. Place the following emails on any chain:

adam.humphrey44@gmail.com

okpolicydebate@googlegroups.com

realartistsofguantanamobay@googlegroups.com

The only acceptable format for a speech is .docx. No content should be located in the 'body' of an email.

Speech documents must contain at minimum all pieces of evidence read in a speech, with all words said from that evidence demarcated (traditionally through highlighting) and all demarcated words said. If you elect not to read certain demarcated words, verbally indicate where you are stopping the evidence.

It is kind but optional to open-source or send analytics, even if your opponent explicitly requests it. Kindness may be rewarded with higher speaker points, but not if kindness constitutes 'going easy' on your opponent (not crushing somebody on an argument they do not understand is unstrategic for a different reason than sending analytics is unstrategic). Completely decimating your opponent strategically is the best way to teach them.

LONG:

I do what debaters tell me to do with these exceptions:

- If any debater requests to end the round, I immediately end the round. The same is true for reporting something to Tabroom.
- If I become aware that a debater is incapable of communicating that they wish to end the round, I immediately end the round.
- If I am externally coerced (for example by tab, law enforcement, or rogues stealing my ballot), I may be physically incapable of meeting the above standard.

Sometimes I may struggle to understand what you are instructing me to do. I view this as a personal error on my part. Here is my policy for resolving this.

- First, I will flow your speech auditorily.
- If that fails, I will make active attempts during prep time to decipher any confusion by analyzing my flow.
- If that fails, I may read evidence where possible to clear up mistakes.
- If that fails, I will use the speech document (if it contains anything beyond evidence) to clear up mistakes.

Disclaimer: I doNOT intend to go rogue by doing any of the above. If I spot that you are misrepresenting your evidence or that a different claim in your evidence is made, I will not consider that. I solely use these methods to help me understand the exact claims you have made.

I still may evaluate incorrectly. This brings me to my policy on postrounding. It is good if you disagree with me. We should figure out the source of the disagreement. I may be in the wrong, and though I am incapable of changing the ballot, I am capable of changing future ballots.

The above means that all of the following concepts in any section beneath are negotiable. I do, however, believe a team advocating for the frames I'm going to enumerate is in a better spot to win them:

All propositions introduced are weakly assumed to have a 100% probability of truth. 'Weakly' means that this assumption of truth only exists in the abject absence of an assertion of the contrary.

"Warrants" are propositions that lend credence to another proposition. Rebutting an opponent's proposition requires asserting the contrary. Good debates involve me 'lining up' warrants for a proposition and its contrary and comparing them, sometimes with 'deeper-level' warrants for each warrant. However, propositions do not require warrants to be considered---instead, the threshold for a strategic response to them is much lower.

Propositions are propositions regardless of where they are introduced. This means that hiding ASPEC in brackets while you're reading evidence is permissible. If you weren't flowing, flow.

Propositions are propositions regardless of how 'dumb' they are. This means that hiding 'evaluate after the 1NC' is permissible. If they're so dumb, disprove them.

I do not think there is such a thing as a 'default.'

Speaker points are based on (in no particular order):

- Strategy
- Quality of Argument
- Kindness
- My Personal Enjoyment
- (Not) Being A Speech Document Terrorist
- Your Judge Instruction on the Speaker Points I Ought To Assign

I am open to instruction about speaker points, but I consider the other standards to also be implicit claims as to what speaker points you should receive, so you may have to debate yourself.

MY BIASES:

Metaethics: I prefer them coherent and offensive. 'Coherent' means clearly defined and consistently applicable. Stuff like 'our only commitment is that racism is bad' doesn't articulate a metaethical position. 'Offensive' means they don't also filter out all offense you have. For example, emotivism or skepticism both filter AFF and NEG offense equally, meaning they have no impact on the round unless 100% dropped. However, Kantianism magnifies promise-breaking offense while filtering consequential impacts. On the other hand, dropped skepticism obviously means vote NEG on presumption. The is-ought gap additionally strikes me as a serious problem that metaethical theories have to bridge.

Non-Topical 1ACs: I appreciate it when they clarify what they defend, if anything. I am probably NEG-leaning on framework, but not for the reason NEG teams currently read.

Defensive Case Arguments: I don't think I'm biased here.

Offensive Case Arguments: I don't think I'm biased here.

Topicality: Covered a little on theory. I'm likely biased toward predictability and logic claims.

Disadvantages. I don't think I'm biased here.

Counterplans. I personally believe all counterplans are illegitimate, and that agent counterplans are especially illegitimate. However, they are also fun---and I've only known 3 people who can articulate why counterplans at large are illegitimate. I do not share the disdain for 'artificially competitive' or 'cheating' counterplans beyond the aforementioned standards, and I likely lean NEG on those questions.

Kritiks: I think there are two types---framework kritiks and fake kritiks. The former I am likely AFF-biased on framework, but not for the reasons AFF teams currently read. The latter I think are merely counterplans (for example, cap is just a different impact scenario for abolishing IP in many cases).

Theory: Violations are binary and do not have 'risk'---51% 'risk' means you're winning the violation, 50% or 1% 'risk' means you are not. This means AFF teams can collapse to the we meet. I think the interpretation is what you say it is. If evidence comes after, that just lends credence to the interpretation. If the evidence is the interpretation, then so be it.

Here are some helpful sources I tend to agree with:

- The Debatalist Papers
- Adhitya Thirumala
- Chinmay Khaladkar

I am likely more favorable to kritikal debate than the latter two on that list.