Lilien,+David

I debated LD for four years at Barringtion High School in Illinois. I am now a student at Yale University, where I do not debate. I debated mostly local circuit but attended a good number of national circuit tournaments my junior and senior years. I have a good bit of experience judging novice and JV debaters and a little experience judging varsity. My preferred speed is a little faster than conversational speeds but not ridiculously quick. I will vote on most anything, as long as it is well warranted. That said, my standards for "well warranted" are particularly high for theory arguments and for critical philosophers (If I am going to spend a significant amount of brain power listening to Agamben, you better be able to extend the warrants in a coherent manner during rebuttals). I prefer criterial debate normally, but I am equally happy to listen to a well-formed case sans-criterion. I would prefer to vote on the information supplied topical experts rather than statistics or ancient philosophers. I will only really intervene for somebody lying about evidence, because I don't think that your opponent not knowing your author well is a good reason for you to be able cheat. Lastly, I will vote on smart arguments over technical ones as long as there is enough of a warrant/impact extended for it to still be smart.