White,+Bradley+Ethan

Thorndale High School (UIL, TFA, and TOC circuits), Baylor University (NDT and CEDA circuits), and Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TIFA and NPDA circuits). I am currently the student coach for Texas A&M University-Kingsville.
 * __My background:__** I have eight years of debate experience; three years of judging/coaching experience. I debated for

__**General:**__ There is no argument I won't listen to, so use your own discretion as to what to read and go for. I’ve debated/coached all levels and styles, so I’m pretty much okay with anything. I will evaluate the round based on the arguments and under the framework presented. Having said that, an argument is a claim and a warrant. When cross-applying or extending an argument, the warrant must be included. However, don’t use this as an invitation to get sloppy on the flow during your speeches.

__**Not-so-general/To be noted:**__ __**Theory/T:**__ I have a somewhat high threshold for theory and topicality arguments. If you are going for theory, there should be a great deal of comparative analysis. If you are going for topicality, there should be a significant doubt to whether or not the affirmative is topical. Thus, I’m not against voting for these arguments, but you need to tell me why I should vote for them.

__**K-esque Arguments:**__ I am more familiar with these kinds of arguments, but don’t assume that I know what you are trying to say. In addition to a well-articulated and specific link story, well-explained impact, and coherent solvency story, you need to explain how your criticism matters in the particular instance of the debate round.

__**Delivery:**__ I am fine with speed. However, I do believe that there is a tradeoff with speed and clarity. If you are reading framework, procedural, or theory type arguments, you might want to adjust your delivery rate accordingly [slow down]. These types of arguments require more pen time; again, use your own discretion.