Merchant,+Saher

I debated LD for four years at Grapevine High School. I graduated in 2013.  On presumptions: Of course, I have personal opinions about topics, however I do not let my opinions interfere with the way I judge debate rounds. I have no bias toward either side of the debate. With that being said, what I do favor in a debate round is well fleshed out argumentation and strategy.

Speed: Speak at whichever speed you are comfortable with - fast or slow, I can flow to it. However, if there is no clarity, then I won't flow. Just a suggestion - slow down for authors and tag lines.

Theory: I understand the purpose of theory and when it should be used. Do not abuse theory. (Oh boy, that's ironic) It is not a "strategic" way to win a debate, it's a lazy way to debate and does not guarantee a win.

Framework arguments: I'm pretty open to any framework arguments as long as they're explained and have some sort of functionality, even if it's a safety net. I would prefer either a comparative weighing mechanism or some type of standard to be decided upon during the round but if it doesn't come to that I am perfectly fine with not voting in the framework part of the debate.

Case positioning: Critical debate is what I am most comfortable with so throw whatever case position you would like at me, I promise I can understand it.

Speaker points: Turns, good defense, and well warranted analysis will get you good speaker points. Explain your arguments well, and be able to uphold justifications for your standard/framework and case positioning and you will be guaranteed great speaker points. Don't be rude to your opponent, there's nothing more annoying than that. Also, please sign post. I will not do work for you.