White,+Justin

I coached LD for Dowling Catholic from fall '12 to spring '16, but I'm not this year due to other commitments. I tend to not be a huge fan of some of the ways LD has been leaning, but as a judge I try to check myself at the door and let the debaters dictate the round. That said, some of the more out there aspects are tough for me to justify giving another debater an L on. If you're wondering what those are, I don't have a particular list in mind right now, so ask me.

I'm not the best with speed, especially being that I'm out of practice at this point. In an ideal world, I'm going to see a round of two students meeting each other in competitive and respectful dialogue, working to better the world in a likely and (ideally, but not necessarily) measurable fashion. In what usually is the world, I see two students spouting stuff neither of them wrote or contributed to, that they don't understand, while bastardizing various philosophers and thinkers in an attempt to trick me or their opponent into giving them the ballot, with no genuine desire to see real-world improvement or change, even if they *say* they are so committed.