Gunderson,+Christian

Hello all:

Speech and Debate has been my home officially since the winter of 2010, but in truth it was quite a bit longer than that. Attempting to make my first Coach proud of me, I did every event I could get into and did my best to understand it. Now, I study History, Oral Theory, Political Economy and Philosophy and compete on a collegiac debate team in a variety of Parli based events; so I've seen a variety of off-the-wall strategies and I am well versed in tradition. My very first open round was against the SIU team that won nationals the year prior.... and the the one before that; so trust me when I tell you I'm good with speed, I'm not just saying that. The following is a list of specific paradigmatic elements for your debate form.

__Policy (CX) Debate:__ Speak as fast as you want, as long as your opponent and partner can understand you; but understand I will not base speaker points purely off your ability to enunciate at these speeds. I am good with a variety of positions, and unless told otherwise I will evaluate the round in the order of Theory, Kritikal, and finally Policy material. Please note the use of unless told otherwise. If you have a theory position telling me to value policies above something else, hey, this stuff is defined beforehand but I'm perfectly willing to redefine rules in round if you have the right position telling me to do so. Tag teaming is okay, but I'll only write down what is said by the owner of the speech.

__Lincoln Douglas (Value) Debate:__ LD was my first form; and I came on the scene when it was wholly traditional, and was running Ks by the time I left. The round is yours, and it can be as progressive or traditional in its focus and material if you want it to be. Please remember and make useful commentary on what exactly a Value, Criterion, Framework point, etc. is. I am frankly exhausted by rounds in which you tell me "I will be valuing Justice" and then never again discuss your value. (Same goes for all three things listed above, but I am not automatically opposed to the use of Justice as a value) More credence will be granted to a debate who has a fair assessment of voters, and please don't tell me your opponent's value is somehow bad. Its really not possible. Finally, impacts are everything.

__Public Forum (Topic) Debate:__ You are the people's debate. I have never afforded a low point win in PF. Speaking quality really is everything in this event. Yes, I hope you have well sourced evidence, but I'm far more interested to see what you do with it; and how well you navigate in round. Tag teaming is okay, but I'll only write down what is said by the owner of the speech. I will grant you a lot more credence on the flow for winning one of your opponents positions than yours, so this means turns are really cool for you to have.

__Congressional Debate:__ This is the event that I had the majority of my success in. I will be preferring a cocktail of speaking skill and logistical strategy, in addition to general good speech giving and inventing skills. Remember that this is a mock congress and please try to act your role and give the considerations that your role would give. Explain to me the difficulty of the political system and provide some sort of nod to the congressional, judicial, or executive processes if it is relevant.

Finally, I can answer any further questions in round. **The best of luck to all of you; and lets have a great tournament. - Christian Gunderson**