Wolf,+Cameron

I debated LD for 3 years at the Kinkaid school in Houston, Texas. I am currently a junior at New York University

I am ok with pretty much any speed as long as you are clear.

I will evaluate the round objectively and am open to all types of arguments. There is absolutely nothing I will not vote on if it is won in round.

The format of your case is not important i.e. I don’t care if you have a value, etc., just make sure there is a coherent method of comparing impacts.

In an ideal debate I would prefer evaluating under a utilitarian standard but that does not mean I will be at all biased towards that in a round. I will vote for whatever standard is won. Just make sure your standard and weighing mechanisms are justified and explained clearly.

Also I will default to a utilitarian calculus if no competing framework is presented.

The most important thing is that you compare and weigh impacts. Clear comparative weighing will usually be the best way to get the ballot.

I am completely fine with theory. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in normal format as long as it is impacted and explained. I think theory can be used strategically and I am not biased towards or against any type of theory.

I also don’t like generic K’s. If you are running one, you should have topic specific links to the aff that aren’t extrapolated from a generic piece of evidence that doesn’t actually say what you want it to. I will vote on anything if it is won, but the more specific, the easier it will be to argue for it.