Bjorklund,+Drew

Drew Bjorklund North Allegheny '15 Wheaton College '19

Hi! I'm primarily an LD judge, but have experience in Policy and PF. This paradigm won't go into too much depth. I will happily explain specifics to anyone who asks.

I debated for four years, basically two on the local circuit and two splitting between local and national. I was better at local debate, qualifying at some point to both CFL and Nats, and winning the state of PA. I made it to bid rounds at Princeton and Wake Forest but lost because I wasn't very good. However, I understand circuit debate and can keep up with speed and more complex argumentation usually. I ran or encountered plans, cps, das, ks, theory, t, micropolitical positions, irony positions and obviously heavy philosophy. You can try running anything, but you should know these two things about me. 1) I'm not a genius. If I do not understand the position, I won't vote on it because 2) I'm honest. I don't need to pretend to be smarter than I am. If the position seems dumb to me, but smart to everyone else, I won't vote for it just because it will make me look smart.

I prefer framework debates, especially if it goes beyond util vs kant. I have no qualms in voting for something that some would describe as morally repugnant if its justified and won in a framework. My favorite philosopher is Kierkegaard. If your game is not philosophy, that's cool too. You can still win in front of me, but you do need to understand how to make your impacts relevant. I will not assume a framework coming into the round, or default to util or something silly like that. You need to explain why something matters. I find theory gross and I will use reasonability to decide how to vote in theory, but please spare me. K's are fine but you better know what you are talking about, and if it is clearly a backfile I will be very bored.

Do not exclude people just so you can win. I have no patience for that. If both debaters are slow, that's fine too. I prefer a speed around a 7/10 for most rounds though. If you are unkind or you make ad hominem attacks in round you will not do well in front of me. I will vote down people who make rounds personally unsafe. Arguments are fine, personal attacks are not. On speaker points, I won't give lower than a 26 unless you are downright offensive. I will give low point wins.