Greer,+Kirk

School: Latin School of Chicago Debate Experience: Competed 1992-4. NFL Quarterfinalist, TOC octas in 1994. Coaching Experience: 3 years, Latin School

I strive as best I can to take all argumentation as presented as long as logically rigorous.

Will vote on any and all off case, K's, framework when made resolutionally specific. When not tied directly to the context of the resolution, I become more skeptical, looking for opponent to indict the argumentation as such.

I am rarely impressed with theory because of the arbitrariness with which theory voters are typically weighed. Run when in-round abuse is present; artful theory defense is appreciated. As stated above, I will vote on any arguments which are warranted and defended in round. But substantive, standard-centric rounds receive higher speaks.

Extensions are examined carefully. Claim, warrant, impact all necessary for substantive argument. Pre-standard extensions must carry forward the warrant of that status. I will not vote on unwarranted extensions, regardless of opponent failure to point out.

Speed OK. But slow down on name and warrants of the cards.