Wootton,+Dylan

I’m an Ex-Policy and LD debater from Logan High School. I did well on the local circuit and decently on the national circuit in LD. My argumentation style is most akin to that of a policy debater; I love DA’s, Plans, Util, etc. I also enjoy kritik debate; however, I am not well versed in much critical literature. As such, if you run a kritik, please make sure you explain to me how it functions in the round (post/pre fiat) and explain the warrants inside of cards. I probably give higher than normal speaks, and if you’re funny or courteous in round your speaker points will reflect that. Specific issues: 1. Arrogance in round- even if you’re facing someone who you have a very small chance of losing to, please don’t be mean. I rarely will vote against you for being mean; however, your speaker points will take a sharp dive and I may give more credence to their arguments. 2. Theory Paradigms- I default to reasonability, but I am easily persuaded by competing interpretations. 3. RVI’s are fine with me, as long as you can prove they are theoretically legitimate. 4. I default to drop the debater unless there are reasons to just drop the argument. 5. Frameworks- I’m not super well versed in philosophy, but if you can explain it well, I am more than happy to vote on it. Make sure you slow down for frameworks that aren’t util so I can catch the explicit warrants. 6. Presumption- I dislike voting on presumption as I believe that there is normally non-zero offense somewhere, but I will if I have to. 7. Defense- good defensive arguments take precedence over bad offensive arguments for me. I will buy ‘there is a risk of a link’, but I won’t if you’re explicitly missing an internal link.