Parson,Daniel

I am primarily an LD coach but have the basics of CX and PF down well and do help with these events. I am a diamond coach with 8 years of experience. I like debate that is intense and passionate - just keep it appropriate. Stay organized and sign post everything so I can flow.

LD - I deeply love LD debate! I am pretty traditional. I believe LD is a philosophical value debate that requires a criterion as a weighing mechanism. I hate spreading and do not like theory arguments. Don't run a plan on the aff or insist one is needed as a neg. We already have CX for that stuff so why this insistance by so many coaches/debaters to turn LD into something it was never intended to be? Other than that I am open to your approach.

CX - I think CX is just flat out cool debate! Articulate speed is fine. I seem to vote on solvency and like real world impacts (not everything leads to nuclear war folks), but I am pretty open really. I am fine with K and T debate. I guess the best advice to give if I am your judge is that while I understand CX pretty well, I do find myself getting lost if you don't sign post well and offer good analysis of the cards you run. At the end of the round I typically find myself asking "Does the aff plan still work? Is it still a good idea?" and decide more logically and from a position of common sense than based on how many cards you ran to strech out some lame advantage, DA or impact.

PF - PF can be so much fun to judge! I believe PF is still trying to find its way in the world of forensics and its been exciting to watch it grow and change. I do think debaters need to back what they say with empirical evidence or I am not going to give it much weight. I seem to vote on the logic being used so a solid impact calc is a good idea if you want my ballot.