Philosophy


 * BACKGROUND**: My Alma Mater is Mesa High school, where I debated LD for two years. My first year of debate was executed in a traditional format, but after a summer camp at the University of Kentucky I was taught in a more progressive manner; I like to find a middle ground, with respect to clear and eloquent speaking, but with appreciation towards evidence, theory, and strategies. I currently debate Policy for Arizona State University.


 * SPEED**: Careful. Too fast, will be taken as too hostile. However, I respect that the debater works in the confines of limited time, so you may talk faster than typical conversation or a traditional speech. Although I can't measure the speed of voice, I can let you know if you're speed is belligerent by the clicking of a pen. If you hear multiple clicks of a pen, then you you should slow down.


 * Arguments:** quality always trumps quaintly. Don't feel like you ought to present a certain amount of contentions.I appreciate a debater who is concise. You can also present multiple contentions with various sub points as long as they remain coherent. Ultimately relevancy and linkage are paramount. progressive strategies or formats are completely acceptable: K's, DA's, etc. You're approach to debate and my evaluation is conditional; I respect you're right to argue from all angles, but I discourage an abusive or misleading styles**.** insofar as I don't care to hear the debater run a bunch of continental philosophy without understanding it. If the debater has respect and understanding towards their evidence and philosophical arguments then they may proceed, avoid being frivolous with the maxims.


 * THEORY:** If the debater enters the theory realm it should be in the name of education and to better define LD or shed clarity on the issues concerning the round. If the debater establishes a interpretation that has clarity, then I will be inclined to view the round in that perspective. However, it doesn't constitute an automatic win in favor of the debater running theory. DO NOT run theory based of novelty, and don't consider it ammunition that can be pulled out of you're files frivolously.


 * For the win:** Extend and write my flow. Talk to me and tell me why I affirm or negate. In concurrent with your extensions, you must repudiate your opponent so that I can make a clear choice (crystallization). The contentions or strategies must have linkage with the value aspect of our debate. What is the core value and how do we uphold this value. Knowing how to win my ballot is this simple.