Cheek,+Ryan

**Ryan Cheek** **Weber State University**

I debated for Weber State University for four years, coached at Wyoming for another three, and am now starting my second year back at Weber State University as the ADOF. I love debate, which is why I have chosen it as a career. Meta/framework issues control many of my decisions. I think framing is one of the most important parts of effective persuasion; therefore I welcome close examination of any framework I am asked to use to evaluate a debate. Although I have a long background in K debate as a competitor, coach and critic, I appreciate watching a diversity of strategies and arguments in a debate. No one’s effort and time in constructing debate arguments should be ignored and I will do my best to check preconceptions at the door. Three key elements to my decisions: 1) **I privilege rhetorical prowess over evidence**. Evidence should be used to support argument, not as a replacement for argument. Superior spin on evidentiary questions is very likely to win the day in front of me. I’m looking to be persuaded of something. Fast or slow, technical or meta, policy or critical, the form of your argument doesn’t matter as much to me. What matters is that I want to reward those I have been convinced by. 2) **I am a sucker for ethically suspect impact turns**. It’s a weakness, I know. But like any good weakness, it’s not easily abated. The good news is that these arguments are usually ridiculous, which should make them easy to defeat. Teams that lose to this strategy have failed to successfully defend the moral high ground, which I believe is not an insurmountable burden. 3) **I prefer to be a minimalist in my decision-making**. I most likely won’t call for a lot of evidence and I probably won’t take a ton of time. Simplest explanation for why someone wins (or why someone loses) is more often than not, the correct one.