Orrison,+Rebecca

I am a first year out. I debated my senior year of high school and now coach for my high school and another local team.

I like substantive resolutional debate with clear impacts to whatever is settled to evaluate the round. I dislike being put into a position where I am forced to make impacts or weigh arguments for debaters. I would prefer to vote on what happens in the round so debaters need to be clear on voters and weigh arguments.

Speed reading is fine, but a drone is not. I appreciate being able to understand the arguments that debaters are making. You should appreciate my understanding too, because if I cannot understand you then I cannot vote for you. This is true for arguments made in round as well.

I dislike the evolutionary course of theory, though I do understand the necessity of some mechanism to check abuse. I think that theory run to the end of an easy win is hypocritical and should not be encouraged in debate.

I know I had fun when I was a debater, and I think debaters should be able to run whatever arguments they feel best resolve the conflict of the resolution. That being said, if you don't understand your own arguments and can't clearly extend and impact them in your own words, I will be likely less able to understand them myself and understand how they matter to the round.