Slinger,+Dylan

Debated in Lincoln Douglas for Lakeville South from 2007-2011 both in state and on the national circuit. State-runner up and Semi-finalist along with TOC bid recipient, debated in outrounds of Glenbrooks, Minneapple and Bronx. Now I attend The University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business.


 * Warning:** I have not judged national circuit debate in a couple years, which doesn't mean I've lost it, but take that for what it's worth.


 * Overview:** I am open minded, debate is an analytical and competitive activity that should be educational and enjoyable. I do not put myself in a specific niche of judges and like to think if you can explain it, I can understand it. Do your absolute best to articulate the entirety of an argument, simply stating "no warrant" is a warantless argument in itself. Clash is absolutely essential in a good debate so be sure to give me weighing analysis and a decision calculus or criterion to evaluate the arguments through. I do not give much or any weight to blippy arguments- just saying "extend" is not enough in my mind, you should be articulating the claim, warrant, link and impact. Weighing is one of the most persuasive strategies for me, I hate debates where there is not substantive comparison of the competing arguments.


 * Speed:** I am fine with moderate speed if it's clear. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing and you will get the hint. Also, if you are using speed to oppress your opponent who clearly does not understand what you are arguing, your speaker points will suffer and I will be very irritated.


 * Theory:** I believe theory is a tool used for only one good reason: checking back abuse. I don't love it but will vote on it.


 * Kritiks/Critical Arguments:** I was a more "stock" debater whose idea of "being progressive" was running a disad, seven contentions or speeding up. I am not well versed in critical literature but I am also not stupid. If you run a K according to the proper structure and you clash with your opponent, I will be receptive and able to adjudicate fairly. If you run a critical arg and can explain your argument well, I will not reject it based on the fact it "goes against the grain". That said, if I don't understand something by the end of the round, it will not matter on my flow.


 * Counterplans:** I enjoy a **good** counterplan. I am less familiar with PICs but believe that an alternative solution is acceptable if you can provide a clear advocacy.


 * Disads:** I view disads as another contention, essentially. Link it through some sort of standard or tell me to just weigh it as a net benefit and I'll do so. The key with a disad in my mind is how you impact and weigh it.


 * Speaker Points:** 30s will be extremely rare and so will anything less than 26.

30- Well done, you're definitely one of my favorites 29- Great presentation, good arguments, I enjoyed the debate 28- You are doing a solid job but could grow 27- You have not reached your potential or are being somewhat slimy or rude 26- You are below average 25- Entering the "you're unprofessional" zone 24 and below- This should not happen

Created: September 19, 2011 Edited: December 19, 2013