Stern,+Ethan

I debated LD for Four years in High School at Half Hollow Hills East, Long Island NY. I'm a Senior at Emory University, and have debated some policy early in my college career with the Barkley Forum. I debated LD on both the local circuit and also the Northeast national circuit.

I'm pretty easy going and you can read anything in front of me as long as you explain to me why its a valid argument and why its well defended. You can talk as fast as you'd like, I have some Policy experience and can comprehend it, I will yell CLEAR mid speech if you aren't being clear enough for me. If you don't get any clearer, I stop flowing. Since I've stopped debating Policy (its been about 2 years), my speed tolerance is definitely a little less than it had been if you've seen me in the previous years. If you don't clearly reexplain an argument you said that wasn't clear, I'm not going to do the work later in the round to try and piece together the flow. Also, be courteous of your opponent. If its obvious they can't understand what you're saying, slow down for them in the next speech. I want to watch good debates where both sides can engage, and if its lopsided because of speed, speaker points will be affected. Otherwise, I think I'm pretty easygoing with speaks, don't be completely out of line or say anything stupid and you'll be ok.

Theory wise, I'll most definitely vote for it if there is a violation, but you have to be pretty clear and convincing as to what it is and why its worth wasting my time listening to it instead of issue debate about the resolution. On a whole, I'd rather watch a debate on the actual resolution, and will hold it against you if you are going for Theory when it is fairly insignificant in relation to what could of been discussed in the round. If I think you're using Theory as a way to skirt around a solid argument, I rarely will look to it.

I enjoy hearing standards debate. I debated on a circuit where it was very prevalent. Make sure you tell me why all of your contentions clearly link back to your standard, and why your standard is winning and solid reasons why I should use it to evaluate the round. If you choose not to use it as the evaluation mechanism, be very clear and convincing with what I should be doing to evaluate the round. Extend your arguments, if they aren't clearly extended through the speeches, I will stop looking for them. I want to have to do the least work on the flow as possible. The more work I have to do, the messier the round, the less happy I am.

My biggest pet peeve is if I'm not given Voting Issues in the second rebuttal. Please give me them. Emphasize them. Save time for them. I want solid and convincing reasons from you why you won the round.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round!