Mestad,+Raymond

I was a debater for 4 years at Hopkins High School, this is my first year out.

I was raised by my dear coach, Adam Torson, to value substantive debating, so that is the first thing you should know when entering the round. I am going to be more impressed by a decent number of strong / strategic (in terms of function in the round) arguments than by a lot of blippy arguments that don't do much more than take up space. This doesn't mean I'm going to penalize you for going fast or anything of the sort - there's just an obvious trend to sacrifice content for the sake of putting as many arguments out there as possible. If you can do fast and intelligent debating, go for it.

As far as speed goes, back in the day I was pretty competent at flowing and went at a decent pace myself, but I haven't flowed or watched a debate round since last spring so if you want to be on the safe side you probably shouldn't go at a face melting speed. I know that that is pretty subjective but you're just going to have to use your best judgement.

I'm willing to vote for any argument that is well warranted. In terms of theory, I'm not opposed to it at all as long you make all the right impacts and give me good reasons to vote on it. That being said, it would definitely be easier to get me to vote on theory if there is actual abuse in the round, but I'd still be willing to vote on it either way. I enjoy interesting arguments as they're more likely to keep me engaged in the round, but keep in my mind that I do not have a super extensive background in philosophy, so be wary of running esoteric arguments that a non-philosophy major would have a hard time understanding. Positional debating is good too.

The easiest way to get my ballot is to give me a clear impact back to some sort of standard and then weighing between the pieces of offense. This keeps the round from getting confusing and will make it easier for me to vote for you.

Speaks will be based off of clarity (in terms of how well / efficiently arguments are explained, although if I literally cannot understand you that will be a problem) and quality of argumentation.