Burton,+Chase

I debated for four years in high school at RHSM and debated a little at Cal last year. I don't any more. I worked for RHSM last year and I am presently working for St. Francis.

I have always found direct questions more useful than judge philosophies, so don't hesitate to ask me anything. I feel like I will inevitably omit something crucial or misrepresent myself in some way. In my experience, debate tends not to have very many hard and fast rules, so a lot of things are situational/contingent.

I probably evaluate debate in an offense/defense paradigm, but I do believe there is such a thing as zero risk of an argument.

I would not describe myself as having strong argumentative predispositions. I did a lot of stuff in high school that ranged across a very wide spectrum of debate, and I think variety and innovation are good.

I know more about certain K authors than others - in particular, feel free to go for psychoanalytic (Lacan/Zizek/Stravakakis/etc.) arguments, but I have read next to none of the literature, so take it easy on me. These people use words that I am very unclear on the meaning of. I am not adverse to becoming clearer, if you would like to teach me.

It is very important in debates to be comparative in your impact assessments and your evidence comparisons.

I am of the opinion that a lot of process counterplans should not be competitive, and the negative is able to win they are all too often because the affirmative messes these debates up. Please, please, please do not let the negative get away with these things. If you are negative and you are able to get away with these things, I will not be personally thrilled, but it will not reflect negatively on the ballot / your speaker points. I will just give you dirty glances.

Debate is great; I hope you enjoy your time with it.