Okundaye,+Osahon

Osahon Okundaye

I debated for seven years at Neenah High School in Neenah, Wisconsin and graduated in 2008. I don't believe in concrete paradigms, but I am sympathetic to arguments that are universally true (meaning "project"-style arguments). Throughout highschool I debated alot of kritiks.I find them to be more persuasive if the evidence is engaged independantly, not as it was taught. Debate as a whole functions better if the debater can interpret an argument but be rooted in the evidence. I also went for a lot of topicality. I do not, however, equate competing interpretations with limits. Limits are just one reason why a definition competes, along with ground, bright line, etc. I also believe that there are only two real impacts in any theory debate: fairness and education. I only described my style to explain my diferences to clarify my position, not because I want to have those types of rounds exclusively. Debaters should do whatever they are best at and have prepared well.

There is no difference between a policy and critical world to me. If the debaters feel differently, the difference must be articulated clearly and impacted. There has to be a consequence to considering the framework. Most kritiks have "real-world" impacts and many disads have "critical" implications.

Fundamentally debate is still a persuasive activity, so try to convince me of it. Even the quickest debaters can change tone and emphasize key arguments. That also means that respect is important. I have no tolerance for disrespect or arrogance. Any unkindness will be reflected in speaker points.

In short I assume nothing about the debate. The best debates to me are ones that question everything, even the jargon that is used, and are executed strategically to isolate a key impact.