Carroll,Darrian

Now the important part.
 * My credentials -** In high school I was a participant in student congress debate. This culminating in a non-placing state finalist finish at this past years state tournament. I also participated in the UIL Regional competition in both Lincoln Douglas debate and Informative speaking. I attended Mansfield Summit High school. I now attend the University of North Texas were I am currently focusing on Political science.


 * Arguments-** I am accepting of all arguments. When one does however make an overreaching argument they also accept the burden of proof. Thus, I believe debaters ought have the freedom to bring forth any argument that is topic specific that they think they can prove.


 * Topicality-** In Lincoln Douglas I am more loose around the need for topicality since you are basically only spending your time on the faulty arguments. In Policy I believe topicality is of a higher importance and must be given more attention. In short attempting to mire down your opponent with non-topical arguments is not suggested.


 * Speed/Number of Arguments-** I am okay with spreading. When spreading however I do warn that if I do not catch the argument and niether does your oppenent I will not be able to carry it over for you without you stating where exactly you said it. This ties directly into the number of arguments presented within the round. In Lincoln Douglas I would prefer to see less, but more well developed arguments. However this does not mean that if many well supported arguments are presented that they will not all be taken into consideration. In Policy I understand that there is a built in need for a large number of arguments and a quick rate of delivery and adjust my expectations as such.


 * Behavior-** In round it is important to respect your judge, your opponent, and the role in which you step into as a debater. That said I will not be swayed one way or another based on the presence of the debater. Thus I ask that you are courteous to each other as human beings, but will not give a round based on what I perceive to be a negative or positive disposition.

Now for the Really Really important stuff.


 * How the round is weighed** Lincoln Douglas is also referred to as Value Debate. I think within this it implies certain ways in which it is meant to be measured. I am a follower of the ideal that the value ought carry the round. This however does not mean because one persons value is inherently higher than another person that they decidedly have the victory. It is important to show how your contentions support your value and that they can realistically achieve said value. In Policy debate due to the large number of arguments in my eyes the value loses less prominence. The value in Policy is counted as something that is only slightly more important than the many other arguments levied and thus is more of a mathematical equation than a subjective choice.


 * Clash-** This is debate so discourse is thought to be imminent. This does not mean that if one must change their case on the fly that they should just to get clash. The resolution should set up a point in which the two sides meet and at that point there should be clash. In Policy clash is just as if not more important. This does not however mean that arguments in which both sides may be met are not weighed just as greatly as other arguments.


 * Flowing-** As cliche as it may sound I'm very "old School" in this regard. I believe is the duty of each debater in every event to go all the way down the flow before the end of the round and point out where they believe they were successful. In round I will be flowing on paper just as the other debaters and I will be checking to see if the speaker has caught every part of the flow not just the highlights. Flowing is very important and can help when deciding rounds.


 * Miscellaneous things-** As a speaker by trade speaker points are very important to me. In order to get 30 out of 30 speaker points the speaker must be eloquent and show a good amount of knowledge around there case. That said I do appercaite good speakers and believe it helps there arguments seem more tangible.