Gray,Alec

=L-D Philosophy=

My main paradigm when it comes to L-D is that I vote on offense, if you don't extend any offense off your case it's going to make it really hard for me to vote for you. So extend arguments, keep the impacts in the debate. When it comes to certain types of arguments I believe an argument is an argument, justify it and explain well, if the argument is not done correctly or is muddled and confusing don't expect my to vote for that argument. The only exception I have to the previously stated rule are the theory arguments against the rules of debate. Do not get on a soapbox and try to tell me why the neg/aff have a considerable advantage, or tell me why you don't need a value or criterion in L-D. The very action of debating with your opponent means you have already accepted to rules to L-D debate do not try to change them.

TL:DR Extend Impacts and offense and stay within the bounds of debate.