Leonard,+Brendan

School affiliation: I was a policy debater/International Public Policy Forum debater in HS. I'm now a first year at the University of Chicago. I debated for four years at Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks CA.

Topicality: T is generally a yes-no issue and if the other team can prove that they meet your definition well enough, I will not vote on T. I am not the biggest fan of T but if the debate is deep without random buzzwords that you think should mean something to me when you aren't putting enough work in, I will like it.

The K: I have no bias against voting on the K; however, catchphrases and jargon are NOT enough. You need to spend significant time explaining the ramifications of your K argument rather than tossing out commonly used K phrases. I will understand them, but that does not mean that you do, enough for me to vote for you. Performance: I don't like it. I will listen to it if you make me, but I am not the judge for you if that is all you go for.

Theory: Probably my least favorite part of all policy debate - most high school theory debates tend to have little weighing of the "impact" claims and rather are just jargon. I will default to only rejecting the argument, if that - you have to provide me a really good reason to reject the team.

I was primarily an IPPF debater in high school, but that doesn't mean that I don't like to hear the K - I really do. In fact, I think it's one of the most valuable things you will get out of in policy debate. Most important, just have fun and loosen up. Debate should be challenging and accesible. If you have other questions feel free to ask me before the round.