Oliver,+Cole

I went to Northland Christian and debated for 4 years, receiving bids and speaker awards from The Glenbrooks, Apple Valley and, St. Marks. My senior year I qualified to the TOC and competed in out rounds at Berkely, Grapevine, Marks, Apple Valley, Glenbrooks, Lexington and was a participant in the Lexington round robin. I placed 3rd at TFA state my senior year but competed at TFA state 3 times.
 * __Background:__**

I'm fine with speed as long as you are clear. However, if you are going to read a very complicated and dense framework or a Kritik please slow down if you want me to understand the internals of the framework or K. I'll do my best to connect the dots that I get but that doesn't mean you will like what I construct.
 * __Speed:__**

I'm also fine with any style or presentation as long as there is a clear reason to evaluate the round how you want me too and as long as you win that reason. I personally read a lot of DA's and policy type arguments so that is what I am naturally most comfortable with but i am also familiar with almost any other type of argument on the circuit. I will not reject any argument on face, there may be some that will be harder to sell (super confusing K's, Skepticism, performances, etc.).
 * __Argumentation:__**

Please for the love of God slow down, don't read a version from 134 A.D with authors who have been dead for thousands of years, MAKE IT CLEAR how you are using skepticism, DO NOT just list blips that say what will or will not trigger skepticism. Develop it if you are going to read it. WARNING: I am very sympathetic to your opponent when it comes to skepticism, but if you do a very good job and clearly win it, I'll vote on it.
 * __ Skepticism :__**

I assume competing interpretations but will evaluate reasonability if won. I like a good theory debate, what this does not mean is to just run 5 shells or to initiate theory debates when there isn't clear abuse. It is much better for your chances of winning and your speaker points if you read one highly developed shell. Any other questions just ask before the round.
 * __Theory/Presumption:__**

As far as presumption goes, I will vote on it as long as it is a well-developed argument.

You start at a 27 and what you do in round will either raise or lower that,
 * __Speaker Points:__**

What you can do to raise it: -Make intelligent arguments -Don't be a blip debater -Be extremely clear -Take interesting but smart strategic decisions -And a lot of other intuitive things that indicate you're a good and talented debater.

Doing the opposite of these things will lower them, or running morally reprehensible cases or arguments that would justify things like the holocaust will not lose you the rounds but will negatively affect your speaker points.