Moore,+Adrick

Affiliation: Lake City High School Background: I debated policy in High School for 2.5 years.

Be nice during cross-examination, I'm fine with tag-team as long as your partner doesn't do the majority of the questioning/answering.

I prefer Kritiks and critical arguments above everything else, but I am also fine with traditional policy debate. If you do decide to run critical arguments you must really go in depth to show me that you understand what your argument is, and for me to understand what I'm voting on and why.

I evaluate T first under competing interpretations and have a high threshold overall for T. The negative must produce some sort of sob story in order for me to vote on Topicality.

Every other argument I evaluate equally. Theory doesn't bother me as I enjoy the theoretical or critical aspects of debate, but you must explain and prove to me that there is reason to vote for you instead of reading card dumps. I do understand that during time constraints explanations will not go as in depth and card dumps will happen, but do your best even in over/underviews of the debate. I only expect the __#|last__ two speeches to address the depth of the arguments that stand at the end of the debate, and any other analysis that comes early is welcome and enjoyed.

When the flash drive leaves the computer I'll stop prep.