Anderson,+Eric

=Hello!=

If you're in a hurry reading this before round, here's what you need to know: -Speed: 8/10 -Can handle complex philosophy -K threshold is high, theory threshold is even higher. I believe that turning to either of these as an A strat is a fundamentally bad thing for debate and I will never vote on "must run a counterplan," "must not run a counterplan," or anything that sounds like that -Nontopical affs will lose -I'm really tired of the whole "let's just out-left each other" competition. I am sympathetic to arguments that appeal to reason rather than the current climate of opinion in debate (ie, "postmodernism is self-defeating, capitalism isn't the root cause of immorality, etc") -Lastly and most importantly: **I will evaluate the round based on whatever framework wins.** If deont wins, I don't care how much Bostrom says the world will end. If virtue ethics wins, I don't care how universalizable an action is. If you win the framework, I WILL use it to weigh contentions and do my best not to intervene with my own philosophical or theological beliefs.

Longer explanation: I did LD for four years at Gig Harbor High School debating on a circuit that ranged from very progressive to very traditional. I'm also majoring in theology and philosophy. Make clear, well-organized arguments and I will vote on them. I think that LD has become largely more or less a left-wing echo chamber, but I myself am a moderate and happy to listen to any good argument. I don't really like debates that ignore substance, and I don't really like performance affs either. I really like the heart behind them and the goal of bringing to light what it's like to deal with oppression, but I think that the specific modes that LD usually does this in (K, non-topical, narrative, performance) are a net bad for productive philosophical discourse. If you want to know more about that you can ask me, but basically, you should just stick to substance in front of me unless your opponent is REALLY being racist etc or your opponent is REALLY being abuse by running 40 off and turns to the aff. Make explicit extensions and **//impact them//**. You can give voters as you move down the flow in your last speech. If you're gonna run a standard that's not Morality, Justice, or Autonomy, ask yourself: "Does this just devolve to morality, justice, or autonomy?" If the answer is yes, just run those. Also, warrant frameworks. It's not enough just to say "The standard is deontology." You need to tell me WHY that's the way to do morality and WHAT it looks like to make a decision under that ethical framework. In that same vein, do your best to have a framework that's philosophically coherent. I will do my utmost not to intervene with my own knowledge, but if I can't figure out how to make decisions under your framework, well, it'll be hard to use it even if you win it. CPs, DAs, and all the rest are fine. Make sure it's competitive. Not sympathetic to disclosure theory unless your plan/cp is incredibly esoteric. Flex prep is fine. I prefer cases follow this format (not that you'll likely have **all** these parts): -Definitions -RA/Observations -Value -Standard/Criterion -Contentions -Underview/spikes

Know the difference between pre/post-fiat and truth-testing/comparative worlds if you plan to use ANY of those terms.

Finally, debate lingo should not lock anyone out of a round. If you don't know how to respond to a theory shell in a technically proficient way that answers all the parts perfectly with the right names and stuff, just calm down and MAKE ARGUMENTS. I'd prefer they were organized and used correct vocab but I know from my own career how frustrating it can be when you have 4 reasons this shell sucks but you can't figure out the seemingly foreign language of theory so judges just ignore your arguments because they didn't use the right words. If you have more specific questions, email me at ericthenovice@gmail.com

ANY REFERENCES TO THIS VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ce1MSJDq8 WILL WIN YOU EXTRA SPEAKER POINTS DEPENDING ON HOW GOOD IT IS