Hendrickson,+Edward

I debated for 4 years at The Meadows School in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Briefly: I read mostly kritiks and policy style arguments, and those are the arguments I’m most likely to understand. If you’re a person who depends a lot upon analytic philosophy, you’re probably better off going extremely slowly in front of me or reading your most brutally simple framework. If you’re a person who relies on clever theory tricks to win, spare me.

More in depth:

Theory: Since this is the issue most of you care the most about, I’ll put it first. Please, please, please do not read theory in front of me. I’m tired of the million bad theory arguments that people drag out of defensible cases. It always starts in CX, where they search around for theory violations. I’m extremely open to reasonability and drop the argument, but only in instances where theory is illegitimate (what I mean to say is that I’m probably going to evaluate theory poorly and that I’m going to intervene unless your theory shell is perfect).

Policy Style Args: I love them. There’s a chance I won’t understand some of the jargon, but chances are unless you’re reading extremely nuanced permutations at light speed, I’ll understand. Plans are probably alright considering most negatives read very generic ethics NCs that apply to every aff nonetheless.

Kritiks: I love them but chances are I won’t like yours. If it’s a very generic postmodern mélange you don’t understand, I’m unlike to vote for you. I sympathize with critical race theory, feminism, queer theory, Foucault, Agamben and Levinas, because I’m more familiar with those authors, but I’m pretty solid on most names you’re likely to toss out.

Framework: Util and I are homies, but I’m going to get lost if you try to confuse your opponent. I really cannot overstate this: analytic philosophy doesn’t jive with me. If your framework pulls a metamorphosis between speeches, I will think you’re being sketchy and if you’re trying to explain the line by line in the 1AC, you’re probably with the wrong judge. Simplicity! That’s not to say I’m a total fool, but I don’t want anyone to be disappointed if I don’t understand their 5 point outer freedom argument. Make links to the topic very clearly.

Things that are no-nos: -skep -going for presumption as though it was a strategy -stupid theory -being aggressive -being intolerant -stealing prep