Kristina+Getty

Coach at Fairview High School 05 to Present Former LD Competitor, Fairview High School (CO) 05

I'm currently working on my masters degree with a focus on IR theory. As much as I love hearing debates about juvenile brain development on the Jan/Feb 11 topic, I'm ready for March/April!

You've probably found my paradigm as some unlucky debater at Stanford 2010 who saw I was from Colorado (where policy is all but dead, LD is dying, and TOC doesn't exist), thought about striking me not recognizing my school, and, now, having gotten me is concerned for your round. I have a lot going against me, so let me help you:

Yes, I do myself prefer a straight-forward-philosophy-based-throw-in-Kant-duke-out-core-values round, but I will vote on anything (K/T/CP/whatever) as long as you theoretically justify it and take the time to explain it. So, I will flow the whole time and as long as you tell me what I am voting on and why I am voting on it, I'll follow. I prefer it if you give me a way to weigh the round and simplify issues, no matter what. Read: need a strong framework of some sort.

Speed is fine as long as its clear. If I've stopped flowing, you've stopped enunciating.

How to win the ballot: - framework clash/weighing - comparative impact calc - not why you are good or opponent bad, but why and how your args outweigh/turn your opp's, and why that means you win - Don't extend tags only, extend warrants and impacts briefly if you want me to evaluate them
 * - Make the round as clear as possible for me, I shouldn't be left having to weigh or extend arguments. I want to vote in the least interventionist way.**

How to get 30 speaks: clash, warrant, impact, weighing in rebuttals, **don't be an asshole,** actually be a good speaker, don't rely on speed, make eye contact, no awkward "ums" or stutters

Things that will greatly annoy me: - You not understanding your case/philosophy you are running, if you don't get it, please don't run it - calling defense turns - claiming your opponent dropped something he/she didn't - asking me my preferences and then disregarding them - arguing with me before the round about my paradigm - Claiming a single issue is sufficient to vote on when it isn't (Just because I like CV debate, doesn't mean I'll vote you up just because you won the value debate) - using time limitations or abuse as excuses for not addressing valid points