Mawn,+Rusty

I debated for three years at Vestavia Hills High School (‘08) in Alabama. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and taught at the National Symposium for Debate (NSD). I am conflicted with Vestavia Hills High School.


 * General:** I will vote on whatever argument/framework you are able to win in round but I do have a number of defaults absent arguments being made about them in-round. I view the debate as giving the aff the burden to prove the resolution true and the neg as having the burden to prove the resolution false. I do not presume either way. The standard by which this is to be done should be established by the debaters but no particular framework is required.


 * Speed:** Go as fast as you want. I’ll yell clear if need be. If you still go through an argument so unclear and fast that I can’t at all follow what you’re saying or even get tags, I will not evaluate that argument.


 * Theory:** Run any theory you want. Importantly, I need to know why the violation reaches the threshold of voting or throwing out the argument. The fact that the violation may affect fairness in some way does not mean it is a reason to vote. I presume fairness is a voter and am fairly hard to convince otherwise.


 * Critical Arguments:** Run them, but if I don’t understand your advocacy in round, I’m not going to read your cards after the round. My background for these arguments is not very strong.


 * Speaks:** Speaker points to me aren’t about speaking skill as much as they are about debating skill. The better you debate the better your speaks.