Name,+Daniel

Name – Daniel Name Affiliations – Winston Churchill High School 2009, the University of North Texas History – I debated for four years at Winston Churchill, qualified for TFA state once, and i debated for North Texas one year with various achievements.

i do not have the fastest ear or pen, but i can keep up as long as what you said was audible.

i like for both teams to have a concrete argument and/or advocacy that they are going for by the end of the round. if you ask my why you didnt win on some micro-argument that you spent a quarter of a second blazing through i will not care because it was not what you were going for. sure, i dont doubt you can explain to me in great detail why that argument turns theirs and gives you a net beneficial reason why i should reject the other team, all of their arguments, their moms, and the sandwich on their table, but if that one 3 second card was so good, then why didnt you say all of that in your last speech?

args: Counterplans: they are my favourite argument in debate when used strategically.

Permutations presentation note: permutation sounds so much better than perm.

Theory: basically what everyone says, competing prewritten blocks are uninteresting. If you strategically use it I will be impressed.

Disadvantages: I'm good with it, but please do your impact calculus in comparison to the aff. It makes the debate much better and easier to judge.

Kritiks: If you are going to go for a K I expect that you have specific links or give analysis that is specific to that aff. I'm also not familiar with a bit of the different terms authors use so it would be best for you to explain the argument in depth and to a level where I can understand it.

Framework: this decides what arguments i look at

Last words – have fun

LD the way i have understood this event (and judged it in the past couple years) is that the contentions should impact through the framework. external impact calculus hasnt really made sense like it does in policy, and you dont really "solve for" it. i guess the way i learned the event is more traditional. considering that there are more nuances that you want me to hear in the constructives, i would suggest going at a more followable pace. in the rebuttals i can understand a quicker pace (and can follow it fine), but logically you should want me to get as much of your case as possible. that is all that comes to mind, i didnt participate in LD in high school, but i did learn it, i have been judging it on and off (when needed, i mostly judge policy) for 2 years, but i enjoy both very much.

have fun, be nice