Govari,+Mehdi

I view debate as a combination of persuasion/presentation and logical argumentation. That being said, I need to understand your arguments; the way you present your arguments matters, and I will likely not understand you if you go too fast. I am not fast at flowing, so my speed threshold is pretty low. Speak persuasively, emphasizing which points matter and which points don't.   I am inclined to believe that debaters must affirm or negate the resolution in its entirety, though I am open to arguments about why a plan or counterplan is sufficient to affirm or negate as long as they are substantive.

In a similar vein, I have a high threshold on theory. I think that debaters should focus on debating the resolution, not about the rules of debate, so there needs to be very clear abuse for me to pull the trigger. I am a traditional type of judge, so I'm really opposed to theory

I dislike K's and other critical arguments because (a) I have virtually no understanding of dense or obscure philosophy, and (b) I really don't think that the way I sign a ballot changes norms or raises support for some movement.

In general, please keep your arguments and speeches clear and easy to follow, especially in the framework. Don't assume that I immediately understand your arguments on that level; explain the basic premises, warrants, and implications of each argument, especially philosophical ones. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand, and it is your job to explain things clearly and convincingly. This is especially important in your last speech.theory

I may or may not disclose after the round depending on how much time I have to do so. Please be ready to debate when you enter the room (have your flows ready, etc.), and time yourselves/each other.

All in all, if you like the very traditional style of debate, with clear, persuasive speeches that focus on the resolution, I may be a decent choice.