****He/Him/His****Preferred name is “Adrian”*** Yes, put me on the email chain. Oneoffcap@gmail.com ***
Policy Debater @ UTD 25’
IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT DEBATING IN COLLEGE THEN REACH OUT TO MY EMAIL ABOVE... UTD HAS GREAT COACHES, PROGRAMS, AND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR DEBATE + MANY OTHER THINGS...
Quick Prefs: 
1- Policy (CP + DA, DA + Case, T, Straight or Impact Turns)
2- IdPol K, Low-Theory K's (cap, security, university), Phil
3- Theory, PoMo or High theory K's
Strike- Tricks, Memes, Skep
General Thoughts
I flow. I will make my decisions largely based on it, as I feel it is the most objective metric I have to evaluate the debate. You can still have good judge instruction. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Dont be ableist, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. you will have an L0 slam-dunked onto your ballot.
low tolerance for misgendering, just use gender neutral pronouns if you’re not sure.
Make sure to set up the email chain pre-round
Titles of email chains should go as follows: teams, tournament and year, then round number" *** ie “Aff Team v Neg Team -- Grapevine 2022 -- R4”, for example
Dont clip cards--if called out there will be a very swift path to an L.
*** Judge instruction is very key. Legit, tell me how to write my ballot. An interactive moment in the last rebuttals where you literally say “top level your ballot should be based on x" followed by an explanation of x, why x should be the top of the ballot, and why you are winning x is very persuasive to me. ***
Policy v Policy -- DA's should have a link, outweigh and (preferably) turn the case, CP's should usually solve the aff or a portion of it and be competitive via a net benefit of sorts. UQ CP's are usually chill -- I default to sufficiency framing, and will not judge kick unless told to. Not great for process/consult-esque strategies.
T -- Probably better for T than most, but won't know a ton of nuances on high school topics -- default to competing interps, and im best for limits standards in these debates -- ev should have 2 things, intent to define and intent to exclude — im not very compelled by “we’ve read this aff all year/it’s the end/beginning of the year” args
Policy v K -- Win a link, you dont have to go for the alt but it can help. If you dont go for the alt and they win try or die framing, you are in a bad spot. Explain your theory of power / thesis claim of the criticism, and how it implicates the aff. Aff teams probably get to weigh the case, neg teams get links/DA’s to it.
K affs vs T -- Affs that have a unique, strategic angle on T in these types of debates will be rewarded with better speaks. Neg without a persuasive reason for why debate is primarily a competitive activity and overcoded by competition probably loses. Affs that have a counter-interp that can justify their approach are appreciated. I care FAR FAR less about having a TVA than some judges.
K v K -- I really need some judge instruction here. Explain why your theory of power accounts for theirs, subsumes theirs, and is a better explanation for the other criticism. More explanation is better, keeping it simple is also good.
Theory -- Dont go for the weird spec shells if you dont have an actual abuse story, and dont go for condo unless it is severely fumbled. Condo is typically great. Saying contradictory things is not. I prob default reasonability on theory and competing interps on topicality. Disclosure theory is not compelling, unless paired as a standard on some type of T flow, you prob dont get to be non-topical on top of not disclosing but its still not too strong of an arg.
Speaks:
Hella arbitrary, don’t really rock with em, but it’s a part of the game I guess.
I’ll try to stay within a decent range, starting at a rough 28 and working up
dont be an a-hole in round for no reason
strategic decisions will be rewarded
+.2 if you make a sports reference that makes sense in the debate or make me laugh in general
Interp — Solid intro, get my attention. Nothing is off-limits. Organize your speech into points. Speak/communicate in whichever way makes you feel the most comfortable. I primarily did extemporaneous in HS.
Closing Remarks:
I understand the time commitment that is put into debate, and will do my best to adjudicate to the best of my ability because that is what you deserve. This activity becomes toxic often times, and I believe judges can play a large role in that. Knowing this, I will do my best to be understanding of all circumstances. If there is ANYTHING I can do to better accommodate you, please let me know prior to the debate beginning if you are comfortable with that. You may also let me know at any other time throughout or after the debate.