Legried,+Erik


 * TOC 2013* - My threshold for speed has gone down substantially for prior tournaments. You don't have to go slow, but something closer to a brisk pace.**


 * Background**: I debated my junior and senior year at the Blake School in Minneapolis, and my freshman and sophomore year at Robbinsdale Cooper High School, also in Minneapolis. For my junior and senior year I primarily debated on the national circuit.


 * Overall**: Outline a clear way for me to evaluate the round and win it. Write the ballot for me. I'm accepting of any argument as long as I can understand it. Also, don't be a jerk.

Presentation: I don't care if you sit/stand. In fact I can't think of any presentation thing that really matters to me.
 * Specifics**:

Speed/Clarity: I can flow //clear// speed and will yell clear if I can't understand you. Things to slow down during -- tags, author names, long sections of analytics, when transitioning between portions of the flow.

Coherence: I accept any argument as long as it is coherent to me. If it has a claim, warrant, and impact fully explained then I will consider it. If it doesn't, I will not, even if your opponent doesn't respond to it.

Default: I default to a comparitive world framework. I default to resolving theory via competing interpretations. I default to viewing theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the debater. I default to not believing in terminal defense and similarly don't see the need to presume one way or another. These are just the ways I view the round absent any reason to view it other ways. Just because I default this way does not mean I'm dogmatic about my belief in these issues.

Theory: I don't mind it but don't run bad theory, it will make me sad. Overall -- good theory is clear, specific, comparative, thought-out, and (I like to think) sincere. Specifically -- make your theory arguments structured (I find the Interp, Violation, Standards, Voter structure effective), explain to me why your voter is a voter, and why to vote down your opponent (if that's the impact you want).

Philosophy: I've read a fair amount of analytic philosophical literature but assume I know nothing about it so as to fully justify the argument. I'm much less well read in continental philosophy so if you're utilizing it be very very clear in your explanation of it because I almost certainly don't know much about it.

Intervention: I do my best to avoid intervention. I will intervene if neither debater has done sufficient work for me to make a decision. I will intervene and not vote on arguments I don't understand. Most importantly, though -- I will intervene and NOT vote on arguments that are unwarranted, even if they are conceded. As such, it is in your best interest to make well-developed arguments, in addition to making the warrant's for all of your arguments extremely clear.

Calling Evidence: I try to avoid calling evidence, especially if it was a matter of clarity during the speeches, since i sympathize for your opponent who will not have the opportunity to read it after the round. However, when evidence is contested for it's contents I will call it. It's best if you give me analysis regarding the content -- i.e. tell me why it doesn't say something it should have, or how your opponent is misrepresenting it, rather than yelling at me to "call this card after the round."

Extensions: Important. Need to be full -- claim, warrant, impact. Don't lie in your extensions, I will check.

Speaker points: I try to average a 28.

If you have questions email me at erik.legried@gmail.com.