Edelberg,+Daniel

__ Background  __ : I debated LD for Princeton High School from 2011-2015. I bid at Yale and broke quite a lot at nationals during my career, although I did not debate at the end of my senior year.

__ Paradigm (A near copy from Yang Yi – he might hate me but we vote on similar things)  __

I’ll vote on any type of argument so long so long as it’s not blatantly offensive; saying racism is a good thing probably won’t get you far. With regard to critical and other dense arguments, err on the side of over-explanation rather than under. I didn’t run that many Ks and I never read more critical literature than I had to, so I am not too versed in that kind of stuff.

I debated a lot theory/T, so:

I default to competing interps, reject the argument, and no RVIs. Feel free to make arguments for reasonability, reject the debater, and RVIs. I don’t believe in offensive counter-interps (feel free to ask for clarification) and think they need RVI justifications in order for me to vote on them, but if your opponent doesn’t point that out then I’ll evaluate it like any other theory shell. Fairness and education are voters and reading fairness is not a voter (assuming you are pulling arguments from a twenty line back-file) will probably not get a check mark. I'll listen, but not happily, to arguments stating that education isn't a voter. I’ll also listen to whatever the new voters the kids are running nowadays, just understand I won’t know those arguments as well.

Oh yeah, and be very clear with your interps, especially for things like paragraph theory. I do believe meta-theory (or whatever its called), as long as its reasonably justified as to why it is in fact “special”, does come first.

If your opponent is obviously less experienced than you are, make an attempt to help, rather than exclude them. You don’t need to read topicality on novices, etc. I believe debate above all needs to be a skill-learning process, not a UFC beat down. I’m more human than debater, probably.

Feel free to pull out your binary shells, but a winning strategy will be much more impressive (on speaks and maybe more leeway with extensions, etc). I will of course listen to any theory or turn dump you have, but I am of the belief that having strategies that adapt to the round and that are built within the round to win are the pinnacle of what it means to be a good debater, and that is how I evaluate your points.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.