Jeffers,+Douglas

I was involved in debate for four years in high school, I graduated in 2006, and have been coaching with the Bronx High School of Science since then. My philosophical leanings are more classical, so couching all your arguments in terms of postmodern critical theory may put you at some kind of disadvantage. I vote at the end of the round on whether I think the resolution has been proven true or false, assigning equal burdens to both debaters. That means that I will not buy unsubstantiated skepticism positions, if you want me to vote negative, you have to prove the resolution, not just tell me that there is some reasonable doubt about affirming. That also means that I do not care whether the arguments are "fair" or "educational." I care if they are true. I will not vote on appeals to other standards, so do not waste your time. I might possibly vote you down for being excessively rude or offensive, but if I do that, I will do that whether the other debater makes an argument about it or not, so again, do not waste your time making those arguments. That said, I am not wedded to any particular structure of case or argument, as long as it proves the resolution true or false. I also will not vote on arguments that did not make sense to me when they were read the first time. I will not vote on it if you suddenly explain it clearly in the NR, and I certainly will not call your evidence after the round in order to try to understand what you said. I appreciate compelling rhetoric, and it will help your speaker points. I do not like extremely fast rounds, but I will try to keep up as well as I can. It is your responsibility to watch me to see whether I am keeping up or not. If the speed causes me to miss arguments, I will not vote on them. Ask me if you have any questions.