Konda,+Kerry

Eight years head coach of all three types of debate.

LD I want to hear a value criterion debate. What you are running needs to be based in philosophical discussion of the resolution. I want to hear analysis linking back to the value in the round. Impacts- that is nice but how is it moral? Why is autonomy more important that equality?

I am not familiar with Ks in LD.

While I may not enjoy the idea of plans, counter plans, and DAs in LD debate- the hand gun resolution is begging you to debate that style. I would prefer a Value Criterion debate but understand that when the resolution is so policy based a debater has to go there.

I do not like speed especially in LD. You will be dropping some serious philosophical concepts and I need time to comprehend and digest.

Public Forum- I want to hear intelligent debate at conversational speed. If framework is ran there needs to be a warrant as to why your framework is superior to use in the round. I still believe that public forum debate style should be about communication and making arguments back by evidence that any person should be able to evaluate an make a decision. Making claims without evidence or not being able to provide evidence within 30 seconds of requesting by the other teams results in me removing that argument from the flow. The rebuttals need to focus on the main voting issues in the round. Decision is based who wins the essential question in the round.

Plans and DA's result in an immediate loss- if you want to do that do policy.