Henman,+Carter

__**Background**__

Nothing super impressive here. I competed in LD in Wyoming/Northern Colorado for all four years of high school. I attended a couple national circuit tournaments (Berkeley, James Logan, Alta) during high school and though I had great fondness for what my peers and coaches referred to as "progressive LD" my experience with it was limited in high school. I was in the top 40 in LD at NFLs as a senior, but otherwise I was only moderately successful as a high school debater.

I've just finished my first season on the college circuit in CX at the University of Wyoming. As a result I've had sufficient exposure to alternative debate styles and non-traditional argumentation as well as training in a faster, more technical mode of debate than I was previously comfortable with. I love debating at the intercollegiate level. I've competed in the open division at both regional and major national tournaments (albeit with minimal success).


 * __General Philosophy__**

I feel perfectly comfortable describing myself as a tab judge and not saying much more. But since I have a whole webpage to say more... I will. I will not draw upon my prior knowledge of certain authors or arguments in order to evaluate a round. I don't automatically make cross-applications or extend arguments--do that for yourself. In general, I will try to refrain from doing any extra work for any given debater with any given argument. This can help or hurt you. Just don't assume I know what I'm doing. Explain it to me.


 * __Speed__**

I have no particular ideological objections to speed (I will still evaluate Ks of speed impartially), but even after a year on the college circuit I'm still quite slow and so are my ears and hands. If you are paperless, I'd like to be included on email chains and/or get your docs on flash drives. I will call out "clear" if clarity becomes an issue, and "slow" if I find myself without adequate pen time to flow your arguments. However, if you don't correct your speaking after two warnings or if you are paperless and I am forced to rely too heavily on your speech docs because of clarity or speed issues then your speaker points will reflect that.

__**Theory/Framework**__

I've seen (and participated in) too many bad theory debates that consist only of reading blocks and ignoring what the other person said. I will likely side with whoever provides me with the best impact framing via substantive engagement on the standards level. Theory is an important part of debate education and it often provides me with an easy way out for deciding the ballot. I like theory when it is done well. As far as the theoretical issues unique to LD go, I am a bit behind so I would recommend leading me by the hand here. I've been debating and evaluating CX theory for more than a year, but I've never really had a good theory debate in LD.


 * __Performance__**

If you're a performance debater, then go for it. Just be prepared to spend some time explaining the role of the ballot and how I weigh your performance against other types of arguments.


 * __K Affs__**

Also fine, however, I think the burden is on you to tell me why you aren't engaging with the resolution. Do what you're going to do, but have a defense your methodology.

__**LD Specifics**__

Not sure if there is a consensus on this yet, but I certainly view the V/VC (if you have one) as an impact framing tool, and rarely a place that debaters can win offense and get a ballot. It's strategic if you can frame the other side out of the debate, but I'm not some tradi LD hack who'll give you the ballot just for winning the value debate.

__**Any other questions?**__

email me: chenman@uwyo.edu