Bose-Kolanu,+Bobo

Debate however you want in front of me. Humor is rewarded. Be smart. Debate is about decisions and seeing farther ahead. I make art and study critical theory. I'm totally fine listening to your policy or your kritik arguments. Realism is not an answer to any damn argument at all. Warrants win debates. Warrants win debates. Warrants win debates. Write my script for my RFD in the last rebuttal. Even if it's an argument I don't "like" I'm fine hearing it - just win it. The team that debates better, wins.

I debated for Harvard for two years, and for Woodward for four. I'm a junior in college.

Also, I'd like to copy this from Eli Jacob's judge philosophy: I’m open to almost all arguments. You should do what you feel gives you the best chance to win. But here are some things: 1) I think that evidence very rarely speaks for itself. Most of the time, arguments are necessary to tie a piece of evidence to the context of a debate. Judges vote for arguments, not cards. This means that if there’s an instance where one side has better evidence and the other side has better argumentation but poorer evidence, I’ll usually default to the team better utilized their inferior evidence.

2) I think strategy is more important than technique. No argument is “dropped” if it is answered by an overarching meta-argument of the other side.

3) I think that debate is about the arguments, but inevitably a debater’s style of delivery influences the persuasiveness of what they say. This doesn’t mean that you should go slowly, but you should definitely be clear and give emphasis to important arguments.