Olsen,+Philip

=Background=
 * President-elect, [|FAU Debate Team], [|Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College], [|Florida Atlantic University]

Parliamentary Debate
=L-D Judging Philosophy=
 * Semifinalist, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, February 2011
 * Champion, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, January 2011
 * Champion, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, November 2010
 * Speed: Can flow spreading moderately yell, but will yell, "Clear!" as necessary.
 * Off-Case Arguments, Disadvantages: These are fine.
 * Theory (e.g., topicality, kritiks): I will accept these as long as there's (1) clear abuse established and (2) it's presented as a clear RFD in the NR.
 * Generally, both AFF and NEG need to present clear advocacy and have position in the round, rather than simply affirming and negating.
 * Judging paradigm: **__Framework.__** The AFF needs to have definitions and a clearly established, well-warranted framework in order to win. The NEG can challenge the AFF's definitions, framework, and contentions, but need only compromise one in order to win.