Dunn,+Richard

Servite High School ‘15 Harvard ‘19

I debated Lincoln-Douglas for four years in high school on both the local and national circuits. I now compete in APDA and BP for Harvard.

GENERAL -Spreading is fine. Slow a bit for tags and author names, and be clear throughout. -Weighing is huge. Tell me what the implications of your arguments are and how they function in the round. This applies to any type of argument. -I have not been keeping up with the LD topics and haven’t done any research on them, so don’t assume that I have knowledge of what the relevant issues/conversations have been on this topic.

TOPICALITY/THEORY -I am definitely receptive to voting on these arguments, and often enjoy them. I love a well-executed, carded T debate, as well as interesting and fresh theory arguments. -I also have no “defaults,” and want to see arguments on how to evaluate theory. This means that I am indeed open to reasonability, and will not automatically default to competing interpretations. -I am also open to granting access to RVIs, perhaps more so than other judges. It seems necessary to me that if the Neg runs theory as a strategic tactic against the Aff, then it should not be a “no-risk” strategy, especially with the structural disadvantages the Aff faces in the round. With that being said, the RVI debate should consider the circumstances of the theory. I am much more likely to grant the Aff access to an RVI if the Neg runs 6 frivolous shells that are all “drop the debater,” whereas I will be quite reluctant to grant access to an RVI in the case of a single shell that seeks to check legitimate abuse. -I will never vote for disclosure theory under any circumstance, so don’t run it in front of me.

FRAMEWORK -Clearly explain what your framework is, and how your offense operates under that framework. I generally enjoy philosophy debates, but do not assume that I will here “Kant” or “contractariansim” and immediately fill in the argument chain for you in my head. I generally think that LD debaters do not do enough to warrant their frameworks, so I like to see solid warrants for these.

KRITIKS -I am not familiar with much critical literature. However, I am receptive to kritiks as long as you clearly explain to me what you are advocating, how that relates or does not relate to the topic, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

POLICY -I am completely fine with policy style arguments, and in fact I enjoy well-crafted disads, plans and counterplans. I am also inclined to think that conditionality is legitimate.