Peak,+Chris

I debated for three years at Loyola High School in Los Angeles, CA on both the local and national circuit. I currently attend Yale University, and plan to major in Philosophy. I would prefer to vote off a well-developed positional case rather than the cop-out of a prioris and spikes hidden in a blippy framework. This is not to say that I will not vote off such a framework, but speaker points will reflect my disapproval of such strategies. Present a standard for how to evaluate the round. At the end of the round, I want to know what standard I’m using to evaluate arguments or otherwise I will be forced to intervene, subjectively evaluating the arguments that seem best to me based on how well developed they are or how their impacts function. Crystallize and make it clear why I am voting for you. If you write my ballot for me, you will receive very high speaker points. A PRIORIS The only theoretical justification for why a prioris come first is that they have a direct link to the resolution. In my view, a formal standard with value and criterion has a much more well-developed link to the resolution. If you want me to vote off a prioris, I need an explicit reason why they necessarily come before the case proper. THEORY I accept theoretical justifications for frameworks in establishing interpretations for how the debate ought to be structured. This is not an offensive reason to vote for you; it merely establishes ground. In terms of voting on in-round abuse, I have a very high threshold. I vote only on in-round abuse with clear violations of fairness or education. CRITICAL ARGUMENTATION In high school, I was a critical debater, so I am familiar with most critical philosophers and have a proclivity to vote for a well-developed critical case or at the least, to give very high speaker points. However, do not run these authors if you do not know what they are saying. Dense philosophy needs to be read at a reasonable pace, so I can catch some of what you are saying. In response to critical argumentation, I would prefer a specific engagement with the actual arguments rather than a general author indict like Heidegger was a Nazi, so don’t look to all the Heidegger cards. Also, performances could be interesting, but I would like to hear debate on the topic. If you are going to give a performance, it should have clear justifications as to why it is more important than an actual formalized debate. SPEED I’m fine with most speed, although I am not the best at flowing. Don’t blame me for not catching something important. If it’s that important, it should be made very clear. The slower you go, the more I can understand. A slowly delivered yet well-thought-out position will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you have any other specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round. 