Lester,+Ryan


 * A Formal Introduction, or, Nice To Meet You:** My name is Ryan Lester. I am a freshman at St. Edward's University in Austin, TX. I debated for four years for Dulles High School in Sugar Land, TX. As a debater, I competed on the local, state, and national circuits, so I have had exposure to many different styles. I have also worked at the University of Texas National Institute In Forensics (UTNIF) LD program as an administrative assistant/lab leader, and was a lab leader at the Colloquium for Academic Debate. There are very few things that I will automatically down somebody for (Spreading in Spanish, amongst other obvious things, will result in a loss), but I do have many preferences about what I like to see in a round.


 * That Statement You Have To Debate:** I beleive that the resolution is a statement of the affirmative's position, and it is his or her job to do their best to defend the statement as true. On the other hand, the negative must do all they can to compell me to vote the opposite way. That being said, I will listen to arguments that say the affirmative has a categorical burden to prove in all instances, but I feel that saying that is just something that makes affirming all the less fun. That's not to say an affirmative deabter should not address the argument, as if it goes dropped, I'll have to accept. As far as presumption goes, I will usually presume negative if at the end of the day nobody is winning any offenese back to the standard. However, if a presume affirmative argument is made in regards to something within the resolution and is well warranted, it may have bearing in my decision.


 * Case Structure, or, Of the Many Ways To Frame Your Story:** Kritiks, narratives, or performance cases are fine with me (and sometimes can be really impressive) if done correctly, meaning that the use of one of these cases ties back to an issue in the resolution, has justifications for why it can be used, and is not run simply for the sake of doing it**.**


 * Values, Criterions, and All That Fluffy Goodness:** While a good value and criterion debate is almost always preferrable, I can understand the need to not use one. Burden structures or multiple sufficient standards are fine so long as they are well warranted. I would prefer values and criterions to be backed up with sound warrants as to how I should weigh arguments back to them. Just telling me that "the value is x and the criterion is y" without any justification is never an advantage. Barring any kind of fancy stuff such as pre-standards arguments, I will almost always default to who won the value criterion debate and whether either debater has sufficient offense linking back to it. Framework arguments before the standards are fine too, such as activating arguments and pieces of framework that preclude certain arguments.


 * A Priori, Ricearoni, Cousin Tony...:** I know a lot of debaters nowadays like to throw twenty or so prestandards arguments at a judge and hoping that one of them goes extended. Please don't do this in front of me. I won't down you for it, but I gotta have some sympathy for the affirmative debater who has to get up in the 1AR and has to address fifteen blippy a prioris and then address everything else. I beleive one or two prestandards arguments are sufficient. That being said, I will accept overviews, underviews, definitional arguments, tautology arguments, and the like so long as they are well warranted. Long story short, I don't speak blip. If no one clearly wins a pre-standards argument, I will refer back to the value/criterion debate.


 * The Birds and the Bees of Theory:** I have never really like theory arguments. I feel that whining about fairness or education often detracts from the real issues of the resolution, things that can make you the real talk of your government, philosophy, or sociology classes. I tried running offensive theory once as a debater, and I honestly felt kind of dirty for doing it. Call me old fashioned, but running theory for the sake of running theory makes a round a lot less enjoyable. I will understand, however, if theory is run for defensive purposes or to address issues such as running multiple a prioris. If there is a compelling reason or there is clear abuse presented in the round, then theory is acceptable. Otherwise, let's have a nice, clean discussion about the resolution.


 * Critical Literature and Using Trendy Philosophers vs. Smart Stock Debate:** One of my favorite kinds of debates simply involve smart, positional argumentation. It is always refreshing to see debaters actually debate the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty or the separation of church and state. If you debate positionally, and do it in a smart way, I will smile a little bit inside. That being said, I beleive that critical literature can bring a whole different perspective to a topic, and has its place in debate. If an authour such as Judith Butler or that Zizek character has something that pertains directly to the issues of the resolution, by all means, use it. However, using the same Nietzche kritik that can applied to every topic by establishing a shady link to the resolution can be quite annoying to a judge, and might give off the sense that it may be being used because you know your opponent won't understand it. Most of these authours like to write in a form of English that most people won't understand because they think it's a sign of distinction, or it makes them smarter than everyone else. Also, their arguments tend to be dense and, like anything from McDonald's, take a while to comletely digest. So, when reading critical literature in front of me, I would prefer you to take it nice and slow. If you need to go fast, be clear; and when explaining it to me in your rebuttals (without lying, of course), explain the argument to me as if you were explaining it to your grandfather. Remember, I'm a college student who does not coach (yet), so I don't often ponder about how Derrida's "On Grammatology" applies to a topic. Plus, making dense arguments seem like they come from the Reader's Digest shows a great amount of understanding of the material on your part, and will prove a valuable skill later in life.


 * Speed, or, How To Not Get A Ticket:** I am willing to admit that I am not the greatest at flowing. As such, speed can sometimes affect my ability to flow or fully comprehend on a substantive level what you are trying to say. I am fine with speed so long as you are not too fast, and would prefer it if you were clear. I will yell "clear" if I beleive that you are not being clear. Speed should not be utilized as a way to sacrifice substance, and sneezing fifty arguments onto the flow often goes hand in hand with arguments not being well developed. Remember, going slow can be agreat virtue. Some of the best debaters I ever saw hardly ever went fast, and were able to utilize their time wisely and have excellent word economy. Don't get the wrong impression though. I will not think less of you if you have to go fast.


 * Helpful Hints, Free of Charge:** If you extend properly, as in extending the claim, warrant, and impact with a link to a standard, that will make my job so much easier. I have judged many rounds where arguments went completely dropped, but I could ot vote on them simply because they were not extended properly. Also, please tell me where you are on the flow during rebuttals, don't just assume I know. Chances are I might not have caught an authour's name, so please refer back to the substance of an argument when addressing it.


 * The Almighty Speaker Points:** I do speaker points on a case by case basis. I really don't have a preference for whether you sit down or stand up during presentation or CX, but I always felt it was nice to stand up and get out of those uncomfortable plastic chairs.


 * Most Important Tip of All: Have Fun, and Be A Good Person!

-**Ryan Lester; St. Edward's University-2012