Mikhayelyan,+Robert

I’ve debated for Lincoln High School for 3 years and have competed nationally twice. In short my paradigm is conservative.

Resolutional Analysis or burden discussions can play an important role in how to frame the round, however, these should be for clarification purposes not to try and limit your opponent out of the round. You need a clear justification and explanation about your observations. Connect them back to the resolution. You also need to make sure you meet your own burdens.

In LD the main framework of the round is usually the value and criterion. If you use a different framework, then you need to explain how it functions and why it matters. Usually, I believe that every argument in the round is anchored in the value that guides the round. Even when using the criterion as a standard for measuring behavior, it only really matters based on the value it is connected to in the process. I love value clash and debate. Winning the value can then be used to show which criterion is the better measure.

The contentions in the case should set up the story line that proves why your framework means we either affirm or negate the resolution. Any MPX in the round come from the framework. Even if you show me how a certain action may kill or save millions of people, if it is not connected back to the value framework, then I do not care about it. As you can tell, I am a solid believer in LD being a value debate.

As for style, I believe that LD is first and foremost a persuasive activity. I don’t know how I’m supposed to vote for you if you aren’t persuasive. Thus, I’m not a big fan of speed. I prefer quality over quantity and I love to see philosophy in debate. Everything must be warranted or explained, if you are extending something tell me why it’s important, if you or your opponent dropped an argument tell me why it doesn’t or does matter in the round. I won’t fill in the dots for you. I get frustrated with LD debaters who just tell me “their arguments don’t apply, extend mine” or “Cross-apply my arguments from Contention 1A” but I get no explanation telling me why to do this or what is does for the round.

I don’t like theory. If you run it, you better plan to go for it and also take the time to clearly develop the argument (Although I might not be happy). If you are going to claim abuse it better be **//obvious//** and strong.

I like to hear crystallization at the end of speeches, which seems to be the most persuasive. If you want to list them as you go that’s fine, just please be persuasive.

I love philosophy. I will be very happy if I hear a good philosophical debate.