Azure McLuckie - Hempstead HS

n/a

---

Christina wawarofsky - Hempstead HS

n/a

---

Edward Lee - Paris

<p> In Lincoln - Douglas I try to balance between the value debate and the resolutional debate.&nbsp; I listen for dropped arguments and I lool for clash on the flow.&nbsp; The value should be connected to the resolution and the criterion should have a clear bright line by which we know it is met.&nbsp; I also want to know where and when a particular philosopher said a thing if you claim they said it.</p> <p> In Policy Debate I see myself as a &quot;critic of argument&quot; but I will vote on stock issues if the arguments are constructed properly.&nbsp; For instance a T argument should have a violation, a definition, and an explanatin of why that definition is the one to be used in the round.&nbsp; Being a Critic of Argument I will not vote for arguments I think totally outrageous (for instance: China will nuke us if the mayor of New York puts bicycle lanes next to the U.N.) Counter-Plans &amp;&nbsp;Kritiks are fine.&nbsp; Although I still think a counter plan should be non-topical.</p> <p> In PFD I listen for the most logical and well structured arguments, for dropped arguments, solid clash.&nbsp; Presentation is also a factor - ie. the speakers should sound and act confident in there speeches.</p>

---

Gloria McLuckie - Hempstead HS

n/a

---