Lu,+Wending

Background: I am a freshman at Stanford. I debated LD in the Northeast in high school, if that means anything to you. I haven't done or paid attention to debate in over a year, so I'm not sure how progressive I am anymore. Don't let that significantly deter you from any sort of argumentation, but keep that in mind.

Theory: My position with theory is that it necessarily invites judge intervention. I prefer it to be used in cases of legitimate abuse, but I won't dismiss it if it is not handled well by the opponent. Theory has to have clean structure and extension for me to vote on it (clearly define the interpretation, violation, standards, voter). I will not vote on blippy, structureless theory.

Critical: I am open to any argumentation. However, don't expect me to be well versed in continental philosophy, deconstruction (i.e. don't read Wittgenstein at top speed).

Speed: If you are clear, I will be fine with most speeds. However, keep in mind that I haven't debated in a year, so it might take me a while to get used to the speed again. I will yell "clear" if I cannot understand you.

Kritiks: I would prefer a more substantive round. Run them if you must.

A priori: I will vote for a prioris, however I will not vote on one sentence blips that suddenly turn into 1 minute voting issues in the 2AR.

Speaker points: 27-average (C), 28-B, 29-A, 30-Best of the day. Debate should be a respectful event, so I'll take half a point off for incivility.

Other: -If you do not weigh arguments that you're winning against arguments that you're losing, you risk inviting intervention on my part. I'm lazy, so if there's an easy place to vote, then I will tend to vote there. -When I was debating, the popular thing to do was dump generic blocks against utilitarianism/deontology on the value criterion. Absent anything else, I have no choice but to accept them, but I give them much lower priority than actual responses. -I like cases about the environment. You won't get any advantage for running them, but you'll get kudos.