Brown,+Wyatt

LD Paradigm The No, No's I am open to any argument that does not enter ethical repugnancy- ae Kill the Poor, Hitler was right, Racism doesn't exist. Pronouns will be respected, blantant intolerance will unilaterally lose you the ballot. Someone's gender indentity is not up for debate period. Do not authenticity test, the debate round is not a place to question someone's sexual, or racial identity. If you lie about a piece of evidence, with malicous intent, YOu will get 0 speaks, and if egregious you will lose the round, and I could possibly talk to tab about disqualification. Please do, Test the boundaries. I am open to any argumentation, and implore debaters to not only challenge their own ideas, but the norms of debate, in its ideology and practice. Include trigger warnings on anything talking about, or detailing sexual assault, or any other form of interpersonal violence. Ask me to read a piece of evidence, if it comes into contention about its content. Feel free to ask questions during my RFD, though remember you will not change the outcome of the debate. Specific Debate Philosophy I will vote on Counter plans (as long as they are mutually exclusive with the AFF), Kritiks, Performance affs/negs, and god forbid, even well debated and FULLY IMPACTED, RVI's. Value Debate- I find that value debate often defaults to the generality that good things are good, so I don't often find much offense to vote Aff or Neg. But I could possibly if there is significant clash. Criterion Debate- I am bit of a romantic when it comes to old school criterions, such as Locke Social Contract, or other distinct philosophies such as Taoism. I believe these forms of broad philosophical frameworks make LD unique, and offer interesting clash and education. I think with these forms of framework allow one to win the debate, with just the criterion debate, if you win that your framework is mutually exclusive with that of your opponents framework, and that your opponents case, or points clashes with that philosophical framework or starting point. And this applies to all forms of offensive framework, and I will follow that winning framework in how I evaluate impacts and there in, so if you win the framework that protecting rights comes before anything else, I will, in the realm of decency, follow you in that, and weigh points in the debate accordingly. I find this philosophy not necessarily inline with the current tropes and trends, as it seems, the trend is to have criterions that are a more strict measurement of contention success, such as "maximizing welfare", or "decreasing income inequality". I often find it hard to get distinct offense, because, hardly ever, is any opponent's framework strictly antithetical to these ideas. But don't you worry, you do you boo, I will go with whatever you want to do, and you can win with any criterion, just debate it well. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Contention- I Love Evidence, I Love Speed, I Flow. But mostly, I Love debaters doing what they are comfortable with, and debating arguments that they care about. I will judge any style. I am not opposed to reading evidence, and will do so if the legitimacy or the interpretation of evidence comes into question. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Cross Ex <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">1) Is binding <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">2) Direct and malicious lie=0 speaks, and maybe losing the round. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">3) You don't always have to disagree with your opponents. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">4) I don't flow cross ex, but I will hold you to your answers. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">5) I put a lot of weight in cross ex when it comes to speaker points, and I just want to say that each debater should be respectful, but that doesn't mean be a pushover, just be willing to let the other talk, and if your opponent starts rambling, you can say thank you and move on, but let them attempt to answer. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">6) The "yes or no" trick is kind of silly, most questions cant be answered strictly with a yes or no. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Final thoughts, <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I think debate is a unique and wonderful opportunity for diversity in ideas, and beliefs. It represents a wonderful part of my life, and hope competitors use it to grow.