Schiel,+Luke

I debated policy for four years at Parkway Central High School and now attend Washington University in St. Louis. Feel free to run whatever you like with me -- I've debate it all; from one off K, to pic + politics, to inherency blocks. Speed is not an issue. If you're not clear, I'll say something.


 * LD Preferences**

Like I said, I debated four years of policy debate. This means that my structural knowledge of LD is very limited. I should be able to follow any argument you run, but try to avoid the semantics/acronyms exclusive to the LD community. Or at least be prepared to explain them to me.

I do believe that both the affirmative and the negative should present an advocacy -- and to warrant a ballot from me I need COMPARATIVE analysis as to why your advocacy is better than your opponent's.

If you're going to run a theoretical or procedural argument, I need impact analysis. I weigh theory as a disadvantage to the other side, not as an end-all to the debate round (ie: I usually subscribe to the school of thought that you punish the argument, not the debater; you can convince me otherwise, though, if you like). That being said, I love theory and will gladly vote on it if you give warranted and impacted analysis. This means that you'll have to do more than simply read a "condo bad" block; you're going to have to (1) relate the theory to this round and (2) ANSWER your opponent's block. While I will vote on potential abuse, the round will be cleaner and my decision will be easier if you give me a specific outline of the in round abuse.

I obviously don't have a bias with what type of argument you run (stock, cp, k, t, etc.), I just like compelling arguments. Debate well. While I ran critiques all the time in high school, don't assume I know your literature.

Style-wise, I really enjoy overviews -- and good overviews will be specific to your opponent's case, not pre-typed. I enjoy it when debaters number their arguments and keep a clean flow. Especially in LD, when there aren't cards everywhere that have a definitive starting point and ending point, I would really appreciate it if you articulate where you are on the flow. I don't mind if you stand or sit while speaking. I don't mind if you grab a card from your opponent while he's speaking. I dislike people that are mean in cross-x. Finally, I think the best rounds consolidate -- don't go for everything. And, for me to vote on an argument, I need to you stop and specifically tell me why that ONE argument is the winning argument in the round. And, more importantly, why that ONE argument is better than/more valid than your opponent’s argument. If your last speech is "extend this card/point, next" I'm going to have a very difficult time voting for you.

Have fun, be funny, don't be a tool, and good luck.