Graham,+Ryan

My name is Ryan Graham and I debated at Marcus high school for 4 years.

I can handle speed with clarity, but if I stop writing, or put my pen down, for an unusual amount of time I probably can’t understand you.

I tend to default assume that the affirmative has the burden of proving the resolution true and the negative prove the resolution false, unless it is argued that I ought to compare the affirmative and negative worlds.

I will use whatever mechanism the debaters provide to adjudicate the round (value/criterion, burdens, criticisms, etc.). This means that the debaters must, clearly, specify how I am to interpret the resolution and explain 2 main things throughout the round: 1) how this interpretation frames the burdens and 2) how these burdens are being achieved.Also, I will evaluate any argument presented and expect the debaters to include sufficient analysis for me to determine whether the affirmative or negative has met their burden. I will not evaluate arguments that are not sufficiently explained to me (or that I don’t understand). However, I do enjoy creativity, strategy, and thought-provoking positions, assuming the position is being clearly presented.

I will, obviously, try to evaluate the round bias-free, but I do have some preferences that should be known to the debaters. First, I don’t like when the round turns into a massive theory debate. This does not mean I will automatically ignore a theory debate, but, if the round becomes a theory debate, I need a very compelling reason to be concerned about theory.A theory justification, or arguments premised on theory justifications, must include why this is a pre-standards concern, (as I said above) explain why I should care about the abuse taking place, and establish why this means you win the round (give me a voter for theory along with a structured violation). (Running theory will make me displeased and I would prefer the debate focus on other issues—but I feel automatically rejecting theory is interventionist, so I will hear the debate) Second, critical philosophical positions, particularly those presented at high speeds, have the potential to confuse me and I will not be able to vote on the argument. Thus, emphasizing warrants and additional explanations of critical arguments will be necessary to get my vote.

Feel free to ask any questions that are unanswered in this paradigm.