Gollahon,+Daniel

My experience:

I competed in TP/TD for three years in high school and was moderately successful--qualified to nationals, etc. I also competed for a year in LD. I spent my first year out of high school coaching a local debate club and a few private students part time. I've also had occasional experience as a judge after graduating HS.

My philosophy (TD & LD):

Overview: I try to approach debate with an open mind. I will do my best to put my biases aside when I write my ballot and breathe in whatever argumentation you offer me. What I'm looking for is a logically consistent system. It can be something absurd and crazy for all I care... so long as it's consistent, you can support it, and the other guy can't break it down. I want to see if your arguments have warrants and impacts, if they link together coherently, and if they link to the resolution. That's it.

Evidence: Evidence is better than not having evidence, of course, but purely logical constructs and theory will usually trump with me. If the evidence makes an argument and you can't explain the author's reasoning or provide a valid mechanism that would support the author's conclusion... then I really don't care who/what you're referencing.

Presentation:The quality of your presentation isn't terribly important. If it helps me follow you, fantastic, but beyond that I more concerned about the content of the argument rather than the nature of the delivery. Feel free to speak rapidly. I should still be able to understand what you're saying, but if you can provide more coherent content by speaking faster, by all means do! Keep in mind I competed in a conversational league though, so when I say quick, I mean still understandable.

T: I like T and will certainly vote on it if merited. Just be sure you spend some time on it--it's not a throwaway argument and deserves to be developed. There should be a lot of detailed responses and technical analysis here.

K's: I like K's if, like with T, they are fleshed out and adequately explained/linked/analyzed/etc.

CPs: CP's are great if done well. Be sure to show mutual exclusivity, please. PICs that include the entire plan and other actor CP's are ones i don't care for... though feel free to try to sell me on your way of thinking--it might work.

CX: Don't be a total jerk. You can still be pretty aggressive when breaking arguments down, but be respectful and moderately polite. Also: This is not something I vote on, per se, but if you're not giving a really thorough and impressive CX, you're probably going to lose the round--I want to see your opponent's arguments engaged and broken down in great detail.

Voting: Obviously I will vote on whoever I think made the best argument overall (in ways I've listed above), but I especially care about impact calculus. Tell me why this all matters. If you can't make or sustain a strong argument for the advantages/disadvantages to adopting your way of thinking, then why am I even listening to you? Show me you provide some kind of significant improvement.

Finally: Please, please, please, for the love of God, don't bore me--that's literally the biggest mistake you can make with me. I want to see some good, solid clash. Engage each other. Don't dodge the issues and stick to your talking points. Create something interesting.

Daniel is currently a senior studying computer science at UF. He competes with the UF IE team and computer programming team. He does LD and makes puns in his spare time.