Since many of you do not know me, nor I you, I figure I should fill you in on who I was as a debater because it has helped to frame some of my views about debate. I did policy debate all throughout high school and college. I currently coach policy debate at Idaho State University. As a debater and coach, I have made my bread and butter on arguments based in gender literature. This has ranged from and probably wasn?t even limited to queer theory, psychoanalytic feminism, feminist discourse analysis, and post-colonial feminism. However, I have plenty of experience going for and coaching many other arguments. As a high school debater, I primarily went for politics and specific counterplans. Other K literature I am pretty well accustomed with includes Nietzschean and Schmittian arguments, spatial politics, race, Marxism, ecology, and theology.
I have no experience with parli debate?my first tournament will be Whitman 2013 followed by NPTE 2013?so if the differences between the two formats are going to significantly affect whatever argument is being made, please make that clear to me. Most of my knowledge about parli as an activity comes from Joe Allen, Nigel Ramoz-Leslie, and James Stevenson. I tell you this because as I am in my formative period of gaining insight into the world of parli debate, some of my perspective is being filtered through them, so perhaps it would behoove you to know what they think about everything as well.
I tend to evaluate things on a more holistic, meta scale. Top-level framing issues often have a significant impact on how I evaluate the micro-issues in a debate. I also think that my threshold for explanation of an argument can tend to be higher than most. To further emphasize this, I think I am more persuaded by fewer, better developed arguments than more, slightly less developed ones. Less is often more.
For further reference, this is my policy judging philosophy:
Judge Philosophy Directory