Email: ethan3768@gmail.com
 Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC.
 There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.
 I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater.
 Public Forum Emory update - ngl, I want you to read theory in front of me if you understand it.
 General:
 I won't evaluate
 1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.
 2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't follow from premises.
 3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.
 4] oppression good in a vacuum. Off limits = racism good. Acceptable but hard to make a good argument = x violence does not happen to y group in z instance. Just be sensitive - pluralist dialogue is important but being mindful of others' feelings is also integral.
 Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory. 
 Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.
 I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.
 Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.
 T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.
 Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.
 Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.
 Ks: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.