Dawson+Foy,+Stacy

Lone Peak High School: 3 years Weber State Univ.: 4 years

My judge philosophy is do whatever you want. I don't have an predispositions against any arguments or type of debating, so feel free to debate the way you feel comfortable.

I did Policy debate in both high school and college so please don't insult me by asking if I'm "ok with speed/spreading." I was a 4 time consecutive NDT qualifier/competitor. If you know what this means, then take it into account. If you don't know what this means, that's too bad.

That being said, most of my expertise is on the Kritikal side of things given that that is what I debated in college. Do not, however, feel as though this means that you cannot run your straight up/stock arguments. There is a reason why they are called stock arguments and I have zero problem with that.

I am beyond fine with debate jargon, however, just saying the words, "internal link turn to framework" isn't enough. PLEASE explain what the internal link turn is or how your argument functions in this way. This true for all arguments, especially in the rebuttals.

One thing that may be unique to me, but I don't know for sure, is that I like sequencing arguments. Call them aprioris/justification args/pre-requisites/primary args/meta-blah or whatever other terms there are for "this comes first" arguments. For me, it's important to know if there is an argument or positing of your argument which effects the way I look at it and how your opponent should address it. So, just tell what comes first and why.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the debate and I will happy to answer them.

Random Notes: I wish people had value debates. Some peoples values just suck and are stupid, and people should say that. Theory is relative and subjective, probably.