Councilman,+Dana

My name is Dana Councilman. I was an LD debater for St. Louis Park High School (MN) for four years, #|graduating in 2014. I debated primarily on the national circuit, attending the TOC my senior year and ending with an even record.

While I consider myself a tab judge and will buy any argument if won, I do have likes and dislikes. The following is a summary of my opinions regarding #|general categories of arguments in LD debate.


 * Theory:** Like everybody else in the community I understand that theory is sometimes needed as a legitimate check on abuse. However, I dislike the preponderance of theory in most higher-level rounds. Additionally, even on a computer, I am not the world's best flower and that is particularly true of my flowing of theory debates. I would be much happier if I didn't have to evaluate messy theory debates and, likely, your speaks will suffer if you run what I deem to be unnecessary theory. White I believe that plan texts should be disclosed at some point before the round I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY, I will vote on it, but, your speaks will suffer a lot.


 * #|Philosophy:** I considered myself a #|framework debater in High School, and am more than receptive to more densely philosophical #|frameworks. However, don't assume I know your framework well, or even at all. If I look confused you're probably not explaining your framework well enough for me. However, regardless of my previous knowledge of the frameworks, I would enjoy listening to intelligent/strategic frameworks.


 * LARP/Util**- I was never very knowledgeable about the nuances of plans, DAs, CPs, etc. I will certainly #|listen to these #|arguments, just be aware that I may not understand fully how, for example, inherency, functions.


 * "Tricky" Strategies**- I am willing to [[#|listen to these arguments and have absolutely nothing against things like contengencies and skep. Just be aware that I do intuitively believe these arguments are abusive and as such will probably be receptive to theoretical objections to these arguments. I also will probably not be pleased with ACs that are loaded with paragraph theory (see the paragraph on theory).


 * Ks:** I will vote for these arguments but I generally dislike Ks. I am much more receptive to "post-fiat" Ks of the resolution than I am to "pre-fiat" Ks. I am probably not the judge you want if you run those type of arguments.