Searles,+Brian

= [I]―Introduction ― I have been selected to be the United States―Marine―Corps dominate ― Marine―Corps―Officer―Lutinenut ― that is indicated by the title ― VOR ― or VOR―War―Death ― Morover― I am certain in my resolve to fulfill all responsibilties for  required as United States―Marine―Corps VOR dominate ― Marine―Corps―Officer―Lutinenut―VOR ― and will therefore never participate in policy debate or any policy debate related activity ― I am in a  loving relationship with my girlfriend and fiance ― Kiersten Strachan ― who proposed to me requesting marriage utilizing a Psychodynamic―Doctor ― = Psychodynamic―Adjusted―Dr―Sigmund―Freud "Mans most disagreeable habits and idiosyncrasies, his deceit, his cowardice, his lack of reverence, are engendered by his incomplete adjustment to a complicated civilization. It is the result of the conflict between our instincts and our culture." Psychodynamic―Adjusted―Dr―Sigmund―Freud

= [II]―Debate Etiquette― = ― Do not cheat. ― Attempt to be civil ― fair ― a nd j ust. ― Make sure to give all of ones evidence to the team one is debating. ― While enacting a judgement for a policy debate I can ensure that I will fulfill my responsibility to adjudicate debates in a just and fair way.

= [III]― Autobiographical―= ― I studied Psychology and Philosophy at the University of North Texas for six years. ― I graduated from the University of North Texas in 2015 ― I debated for Whitney Young Magnet High School for three years, and the University of North Texas for five years; a total of nine years of Critique and policy research and debate experience. ― I have coached High School Debate.

= [IV]―Overview― R easoning―Processes ― Strategy―= ― I view debate as an educational activity where two competing teams demonstrate argumentation over the topic, and―or contextual questions. ―Constructive speeches ― First Affirmative Constructive ― Second Affirmative Constructive ― First Negative Constructive ― and Second Negative Constructive ― should place emphasis on developing one’s argument by demonstrating evidence of research ― argumentative ― organizational ― speech and communication skills. Responding to each one of your competitor’s arguments ― in sequence ― is advised given evidence that such a notation and argument response format improves problem solving and information processing skills. However, a response must have a warrant; indicating a rational justification that directly supports and justified ones truth―claim. Specific argumentative responses to an argument should contain both rational inferences and argumentation supported with evidence that includes a citation. Offense argumentation ― i ndicating that an argument has a bad or has a good consequence ― and defense argumentation [indicating that an argument does not have a bad or does not have a good consequence] both factor in developing a strategic and coherent position for future speeches. The rational for evaluating the most precise proportion of offensive and defensive argumentation differs between Policy and Kritique positions. However ― one can reason that demonstrating ones entire positions truth ― merit ― precision ― benefit ― and actual correspondence to the real facts ― In the form of ones advocacy or negation of ones opponents advocacy ― should be the end―goal of the rational in different offensive and defensive argumentative ratios. ― Rebuttal Speeches ― First Affirmative Rebuttal ― Second Affirmative Rebuttal ― First Negative Rebuttal ― and Second Negative Rebuttal ― should place emphases on enacting one’s strategy. Strategy considerations are important ― especially in debates rebuttals ― because the overall frame picturing how arguments interact ― in terms of argumentation's sequence of Importance ― argumentation's connection or disconnection from one another ― and argumentation's contradiction or coherence with one another will be an indication of the rational integrity and quality of one’s rebuttal argumentative―strategy. Comparison between one’s competitors and ones differing strategy ― evidence ― and argumentation framework is necessary to engage ones opponents position and demonstrate that one’s argument is more correct ― more precise ― more sound ― better―researched ― and utilizes truer and more rigorous reasoning process’s. Such a comparison of argumentation ― should explain why the differences in one’s argumentation is beneficial ― and why the difference’s distinguishing one’s opponent’s argument from ones own argument is problematic ― and results in a negative implication ―

= [V]―Argumentation Framework― = ― Arguments should consist of a claim and a warrant, supported by qualified and―or empirical evidence. ― Arguments should be sensible, follow a rational line of thinking, and coherent. ― Arguments are strong when they are rationally demonstrated, have evidenced support, are free of any logical errors ― correspond to actual world facts, and are coherent. It is necessary that argumentation is coherent In the concluding rebuttals. ― In the concluding rebuttals the evidence for arguments must be explained and compared to ones opponents evidence. Comparison of evidence, in terms of argumentative support, credibility, correctness, context, research―technique and rigor, empirical―historical support, recentness ― if relevant ― and quality will substantiate your argument. = = = =

=**[VI]― Errors to Avoid― Cognitive Biases― Logical Fallacies ― Heuristics ― Deception ― Corruption ― Jokes in Bad Taste ― Non―Words **** ― **** Actual Words Are Found In The Standard Dictionary―Print ― Grammatical―Errors in Speech ― Pseudo―Statements ― False Choices ― Forgone Conclusions ** ― Miss―Framing ― Hostility ― Distortions In The Directi ** on Of Causality ― Confusing Cause With Effect ― and―or― Psychopathology― **=

― The above types of argumentation forms de―facto invalidate the argument, no matter if the content of the argument is true. Refrain from unsound, un―cogent, and―or incoherent argumentation ― The above framework for argument form is meant not to stifle free speech, or creativity, but rather to advance a rigorous type of education, that disallows for any errors that would impede the educational purpose of the activity. ― Engaging in one the above errors, does not indicate an automatic loss, or speech deduction, but rather will result in a decreased probability of persuading me of your arguments merit, and thus winning my ballot. <<>>

= [VII]―Policy ― Advantages ― Counterplans ― Disadvantages ― Political ―Science―= ― Arguments that fall within the domain of political science are educational, necessary, and sensible. It Is necessary to explain the logical chain of connections and effects, from the uniqueness ― non―inevitability ― argument to the implication ― the negative consequences of the link ― specifically for policy argumentation in the later rebuttals. I view the policy version of debate through the framework of opportunity costs, and costs benefit analyses.

= [VIII]―Crtitique― = ― I prefer Kritique’s that are Scientifically―Psychologically sound ― and justified <<>>. I generally determine the Kritique on the implication framing of the ethic―meaning―value to life component of the debate. A turns case argument is persuasive, but not sufficient to outweigh the Affirmative. Explain your framework for the debate, and framework regarding implication comparison. Withstanding the differentiation between argumentation and writing ― It is especially important for Kritique debates to be clear ― even more so than other frameworks for debate ― due to the complex nature of the themes ― subjects ― and research literature in the academic disciplines ― from which Kritique research originates. Clarity ― not only in speaking comprehensibility ― but also in terms of clarity of communicating one’s argumentation ― should be emphasized in Kritique debates. Correct word choice ― context ― and precision of scientific concepts ― and terms will improve one’s clarity of communication in Kritique debates.

= [IX]―Topicality and Theory― = ― I will vote on this type of argument if there is enough quality argumentation, and rational justification to vote on theoretical questions. This has to be determined by the particular round. It Is necessary that time trade off and strategy implications are explained in terms of fairness and education.

= [X]―Reading Quickly― = ― There is evidence that reading quickly ― out―loud ― can improve memory, and information processing skills. However ― It is self ― defeating if one is speaking so quickly that one incurs a cost on clarity and―or the capacity to transmit information. One should be comprehensible. ― Time limits in debate give debaters an incentive to speak more quickly ― however the rational quality ― rational processes ― and rational justifications of argumentation including the ― truth of empirical support of one’s argumentation demonstrated via contextual evidence ― is more important in adjudication a fair and just decision than the amount or quantity of arguments within an allocated scope of time. ― Demonstrating one’s faculties of reason ― one’s communicative efficiency ― and one’s time adjustment skills ― will be more effective in demonstrating ― and advancing one’s argumentative strategy and positon ― than speaking quickly at the cost of clarity.

= ― Brian V. Searles II ― =  ― I prefer Kritique’s that are Scientific―Psychologically sound ― and justified [*Psychoanalysis―Psychodynamic]. I generally determine the Kritique on the implication framing of the ethic―meaning―value to life component of the debate. A turns case argument is persuasive, but not sufficient to outweigh the AFF. Explain your framework for the debate, and framework regarding implication comparison. Withstandind the differntiation between argumentation and writing ― Kritique debates to be clear not only in speach comprehension but also in terms of clarity of communicating one’s argumentation. Correct word choice context and precision of scientific concepts and terms will improve one’s clarity of communication in Kritique debates. !