Lee,+Ian

I debated all four years in high school at Millard South in Omaha, NE Also one year in college at the University of Central Oklahoma and currently at the University of Pittsburgh.

In high school I debated my first two years strictly policy style arguments, and the last two strictly critical debate. At UCO the modus operandi was left, left, left, so I found myself the most conservative debater on the squad. At Pittsburgh I've read and gone for counterplan/disad strats, theory, topicality, and assorted Ks. This experience means I'm comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum and everywhere in between. My personal preference for argumentation is the K. This means I prefer to debate it, but this in no way means I have any expectations of what you run. (PLEASE DO NOT READ A K THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND TO WIN MY BALLOT.) The institution of debate doesn't "belong" to anyone meaning you should run what you're good at/enjoy. I'll hash it out as I'm told.

I don't like to read evidence so **you're better off making the argument/warrant from the evidence analytically as a part of the extension than expecting me to read your evidence after the round.**

Theory- I'd like to hear it off the blocks a little bit. I've seen far too many rounds in which each team just reads what their coaches have read with minimal understanding of the argument. Whoever does comparative analysis better and impacts/subsumes the other team's fw better gets the win.

International actor Fiat- I'm not predisposed for or against it. I understand its educational to act as congresspeople IN THE USFG but I also think that there are fair arguments to be made about the judge taking on the mantle of a policy analyst and the value it has.

Conditionality- I think that the fairness of multiple conditional worlds is inversely proportional to the number of positions you read-i.e. if you're about to read three cps, my willingness to think you're being unfair is higher than if you read one or two. I am however partial to arguments that testing an aff from multiple angles is good such as the course of legislation, the representations you endorse, and what ontology your argument is imbued with.

Topicality- I generally evaluate T using the off/def paradigm. If you want to go for a fairness voter you need to explain what that means and why abuse means they lose. There can be a couple levels of analysis to impacts of T: in round (fairness, education, jurisdiction etc.) and the community level (you hurt debate or the debate community). I'll vote on either set, you just need to do the work to make that happen. Appeals to authority such as a jurisdiction voter are not particularly persuasive to me. I'll just be real.

The K- Sure. Just using buzz words is weak sauce and not persuasive. Either define them early in the round or switch it up a bit. I'll know if you don't know what you're talking about, and it'll hurt your speaks and likelihood of success. Gotta answer a policy fw. If they win it excludes you your impacts go away.

Not a huge fan of politics, but I've run it several times this year so I'm familiar with the contemporary scenarios and a bit of the theory.

Performance- Win that your action is good. Plain and simple. Doesn't have to relate to the topic in a specific manner unless they read a framework argument that they win mandates it.

Feel free to talk to me at any tournament. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Other than that just have fun. It's a war out there but it doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy it.