Hunter Hurt ParadigmLast changed 2/23 1:23P CDT
I'm a second-year debater for the University of Iowa who wants to be on the email chain (email@example.com)
Primarily I see debate a space for competitors to hone skills and find new ways to understand the world around them. As such, I think that it is up to the debaters to define what is and is't important in deciding the round. What follows is a series of unorganized thought I have that might help you debate in front of me:
I am willing to vote on/listen to any argument you're willing to present, i will reward smart argumentative strategy and punish messy or contradictory strategies, especially those which rely on an element of in-round performance or representation.
Dropped arguments are true, dropped claims are not
In general, the more realistic your impact, the happier I am
I'm a sucker for clever cross-applications and strategic concessions as I think they demonstrate a more holistic understanding of the debate and how arguments interact with one another
I flow, and generally appreciate, cross-ex. However, an argument made in cx is more persuasive if anchored in an actual speech.
T/Framework - Obviously I would prefer a debate in which the negative responds to the argument made by the 1AC, however I understand that many 2As try to make that as hard as possible. That said, I am much more persuaded by skills/education than fairness impacts but remember to explain how these skills/education make the world a better place.