Larsen,+Raúl

Background High School: LD, Extemporaneous Speaking, Public Forum, Congress (in order of focus) College: Policy, Parliamentary, Public (in order of focus)

LD: Debate has always been some level of performance. The round belongs to the debaters, and I will accept their framing as contended in their arguments. My default is that the value criterion is the metric by which I should weigh arguments. This isn't said enough (to newer debaters): you can lose the value criterion/strategically cede it and still win the round; winning the criterial debate is not tantamount to winning the round. As a debater, I used a lot of a priori/burden/framing arguments, and I can appreciate that they're useful. However, simply giving a burden is insufficient - explain why this burden has relevance to the round, and why it should be a deciding factor in my decision. I will vote on framework if you can explain why it's more compelling to live in a world debaters abide by the rules or if you can provide egregious harm by the arguments presented by your opponents. That said, there are plenty of reasons to believe that debate is a place to play with the rules and debate what should be debated, and if you have a compelling reason for me to leave the topic/resolution, I am happy to follow you down that rabbit hole.

Public Forum: I think that this should be the most accessible debate form. Statistics/data/evidence can be used to advance your credibility or support arguments, but you should work to appeal to the general audience. If your entire speech is just a listing of statistics, the eyes of a lay judge will most likely glaze over. You should be the conduit between data and persuasion. That said, I will keep a traditional debate flow on paper, and keep a line by line.