My background is in American Government, History and Civics. I have a working understanding of common philosophical debates and kritikal theory. I believe the purpose of debate is to educate, research, and speak. I believe that true honest debate is far superior to one that involves tricks, gimmicks, and technical traps. If i have a choice between giving the ballot to a team with the better argument, or the team that one on a technical nit-pickery, if you will, I will end to vote for the superior argument.

Do not take that to mean that alternative styles are unwelcome, I love performance, I love new things, I just expect to see them backed up with the same level of foundational rhetoric that one would expect from a straight policy case. 

I am fine with letting the debaters in the room decided, and agree to, various nuances of the debate. I despise spreading and speed reading - I don't have your case in front of me, if I can not understand you I will give you a warning, if it is ignored it will impact your round. 

I look forward to working with you all.