Sellman,+Robyn

I am currently the assistant coach at Coon Rapids High School for the second year in a row. I graduated in 2010 after four years of LD debate.

I tend to prefer traditional argumentation with aspects of technical style. I prefer to see good flow coverage and good line-by-line argumentation. However, I also prefer good criterion debate as that is what is used to determine (hypothetically) who wins the debate round. That being said, I appreciate good weighing analysis for each argument and I like to be told exactly what the implications of certain arguments are. Just because you say extend, doesn't mean I will do it. I expect clear, clean extensions with good analysis about what I am expected to do with the argument.

I appreciated a diversified rebuttal with a combination of offense and defense on the flow. I appreciate offensive underviews/overviews/offcase and will weigh them as case-level offense if you tell me to and tell me how it links to the standard that we are using to weigh with.

I will vote on theory if there is clear in round abuse. I will vote on theory if you are using it strategically. If you are using it to confuse your opponent or muddle the debate, I will not. I don't prefer to evaluate RVIs unless they are //extremely// compelling.

I have some experience with K's and narratives, I will listen to them and evaluate them how you tell me to. I enjoy critical arguments made in traditional ways. But the same rules apply, tell me what to do with your arguments. I don't vote for things just because they sound cool (even if they are).

I have no problems with speed, provided you are clear. And I expect some prioritization of issues at the end of the debate (voters, crystallization, weighing analysis) I don't care how you do it, just please tell me how/when/why to evaluate your arguments **in concert** with your opponent's arguments.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. I prefer not to be asked topic questions. Ex: Do you buy Rawls?