Connell,+Rob

My paradigm has changed a bit over the last few years, but I'm not quite to the point where I can put all of those changes into words. I'll put a few things here that I think will help and I'm more than willing to answer any question in round.

I think debate has a lot of educational merit. At the same time, I do see it as a game to be played (and won).

I'll vote on theory. If I really don't want to pull the trigger on theory, I won't - though this hasn't happened yet. What's most likely is I'll feel bad, vote for the theory that was unnecessary except as a strategic tool, and then give lower speaks. And when I have a bunch of theory, I may put myself into the arguments more because I feel like theory is an appeal to the rules/purpose of debate and brings the judge into the game. That's not to say I'll intervene, just that I won't be as flow based as I otherwise would be.

Weighing is more than saying "this outweighs on magnitude because more people die" or something similar. I need a justification for your weighing calculus. And I prefer specific impact comparison far more than the use of random expressions that relate weighing (magnitude, time frame, scope, etc). Weighing determines my decision.

I like crystallization at the end of the final speech. That doesn't mean giving me a list of reasons to vote for you. It means at least giving me an order of evaluation and ideally giving me combinations of arguments/specific relation to your opponent's arguments that write my ballot for me.

I enjoy well warranted, unique arguments. That doesn't only mean critical or complex. I just like hearing arguments I haven't heard before/hearing the topic interpreted in a way I haven't thought of before.

You must not speak too fast for me. I want to hear you persuade me. Spreading is acceptable, but if I can’t understand it then I won’t count it in the round.