Scripter,+Luke

My paradigm is tabula rasa. I am open to arguments within the round regarding how I should evaluate the round. What I want to hear is a set of clear, organized arguments that tell me the significance of seeing the round in a certain light. Consequently, I’m open to a wide range of theoretical arguments about what is and is not permissible within the context of the debate. These arguments should be grounded in an articulation of why certain issues within the debate matter. Explain to me the implications for seeing the debate in a certain way (especially with regard to its educational value). As for speed, I’m ok with it as long as the arguments are presented clearly and in an organized fashion. If arguments are presented fast, make it easy to flow by employing a conspicuous structure. Above all, I want to hear a crystalized narrative of voting issues presented in the final speeches. Tell me a good story that explains what is important in the round and why it is important.