York,+Alex

LD

I debated for three years in high school participating in LD, CX, extempt, and student congress. I spent some time in student congress in college and majored in Art and Philosophy. I've judged all of the above in tournaments over the past four years.

Overall, I prefer a focus on classical, clear argumentative development. While spreading and speed have their appeal, if it is to the detriment of your coherency or argumentative logic, then do not do it. Argumentation is not about volume, but about quality. A small, well-crafted, enlightened point can pull the rug out from a mountain of loosely connected information.

What I'm looking for is whether you understand the logic and arguments on the table and how you believe you're using the ones that are in your hands. It does little good if your opponent's case has a deeply inherent flaw that I can see but you fail to elucidate.

I deeply appreciate creativity.

Debate is like a sword-fighting dance in which there are forms to be observed, but forms with room for improvisation and virtuosity.

Debate is like chess. Offense is the best defense. Early on acquire control of the center of the argument, create a momentum in which your opponent must primarily respond to your attacks without having the time to mount assaults.

Debate is like a castle siege in which the affirmative builds with his words a fort, within whose walls the resolution is secure. The negative is like an army come to take the castle by force, it's sentences arrows over the castle battlements. The negative case is a special weapon with which to break the affirmative's defenses. Thus, a clear understanding of conceptual architecture and swift-thinking strategy are key.