Last changed on
Fri October 30, 2020 at 10:30 PM EDT
Email: awesleycarter@gmail.com
Background: I debated LD and policy. Currently coaching.
Paradigm: I don't have any strong preferences regarding style; I'll vote on any K, theory, or stock case if you're winning the flow. I think K's are fun to watch.
- Stock: I love a good policy debate. Weigh your impacts. Tech>truth.
- Critiques: Interesting K's will always have a special place in my heart. I'm happy to vote on any K you want to read although I might not be an expert on the lit base.
- T/Theory/Framework: My threshold is pretty reasonable; I will pull the trigger if you can prove in-round abuse or if you're clearly winning the flow. The more organized your speeches the easier it will be for me to tell if these conditions have been met.
Other Thoughts:
Speaker Point Scale:
_29-30: Excellent
_28-29: Pretty good
_27-28: Hmmm
_25-27: Needs work
- I default to the assumption that debate is a game and fairness is a voter. I can be convinced otherwise, but I think both sides should have a potential path to the ballot.
- I believe that disclosure is good for debate.
- Prep time should stop running when you are ready to speak (speech doc is uploaded, flash-drive has left your computer, email is sent, etc.) I'll trust the debaters to time each other.
- Flex prep is great.
- Far-fetched link chains do not always let you weigh high-magnitude impacts. If your internal links are flawed to the point of being meaningless the impact scenario is no longer offense for you.
- I'm a sucker for a good overview.
- The Speed K is a great argument whose time has not yet come. I'm down to vote for it if you do it well.
