Very important: If you perform a "yeah boy", in any speech, that is at least 20 seconds long, I'll guarantee a 29 speaks. If your "yeah boy" is over 30 seconds, I'll guarantee a 30/29.9 speaks (29.9 in case you lose and tab won't let me give you higher speaks than winner, which is likely since you're allocating a lot of time to your yeah boy). Also if you see me wearing an umbrella hat throughout the tournament, it's because my kids won a bet against me.

Dear Novices: I very much love and appreciate you, but will a little more if you 1. have some framework interaction (tell me why I should use your framework and why I shouldn't use your opponent's) and 2. do some impact weighing (explain why your impact(s) is the most important compared to the others in the round). Keep up the good work!! you can ignore the rest of my paradigm.

Online: I wasn't very good at flowing online debate so please speak clearly and use inflection in your voice to emphasize key things you want me to get down.
For the email chain or whatever feel free to shoot me an email: iansdebatemail@gmail.com
My Debate background:
I debated 4 years at Millard North, 2 years of policy, and 2 years of LD. I had success on a mixed bag local circuit(progressive and traditional), winning tournaments and speaker awards. I was okay on the national circuit, breaking at some tournaments. I qualified for Nationals 3 years. I was a flex debater running mostly Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.
Currently on my demon time as an assistant coach at Millard North, coaching LD.

Pref Cheat sheet:
K- 1 or 2
Theory-1 or 2
Phil-1 or 2
Tricks- 2 or 3
Larp- 3 or 4
General things to know/things I default to:
tech>truth
truth testing>comparative worlds
Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty
Permissibility affirms, Presumption negates.
No RVIs(it's not hard to convince me otherwise though.)
Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.
Competing interps>reasonability
I tend to give pretty high speaks, 28.5= Average Debater. I base speaks on efficiency and the quality of your arguments, I don't care how pretty you speak so long as I can understand you.
Be Nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive (Racism, queerphobic, etc.)
Event Specific:
LD & Policy- I'll evaluate these two the same way.
Larp: Didn't do much of this in either event, just make sure you give me a justified framing mechanism so I can evaluate and weigh impacts, instead of just assuming I care, I.E. if you make Cap good impact turns on a cap k even if you end up winning them, if your opponents ROB is the only framing mechanism your impact turns mean nothing (unless you articulated a way in which they weigh under the ROB).
Phil: I read a good amount of phil, I'm fine with Normative or Descriptive frameworks. I read Kant, Hobbes, Functionalism(or constituivism), Realism(IR), International Law, Contractarianism, and maybe some others that I can't remember.
T/Theory: You can see some of my general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are my lens in which I use to evaluate the theory debate and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you do weighing between your arguments don't just repeat your arguments verbatim in the rebuttals and expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (In front of me yes policy kids you can debate paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI.)
Kritiks: I mess with Kritiks, one thing I'll generally note on them is that their ROBs are typically impact justified, either don't have a impact justified framing mechanism or explain why being impact justified is good or doesn't matter (if this is an issue brought up). I'm most familiar with Modernist Cap ks. I'm familiar with D(& G), Puar, Buadrillard, Foucault, Agamben, Afropessimism, Queer pessimism, maybe some others you can always ask. Please still explain your arguments, I will try my best not to commit the sin of judge intervention by doing work for anyone.
Tricks: I ran tricks a little bit, they're fun please just make sure they're clearly delineated and are actually warranted and implicated in the first speech that they're made in. Also try to read them slower.
PF- Never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism in which I can evaluate the round and weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand.
Congress- I did congress once, if I end up judging, you should probably try to appeal to the other judges more, I don't care how you speak, I like clash and I like the content of what you're saying.