the entire csu-la team however, they’re class acts. jesus in particular, i specifically remember from the first round at my first ld tournament of the season as exemplifying the qualities of a fine competitor. jesus caro for president.

i’d say nothing personal– but when you put your personal characteristics up as qualifications for an elected post, how else do you expect to be judged outside of past interactions? for the record, you’re all better debaters than me. best of luck!

Much like the other nominees, I have also had some success in this activity including:
2nd Place PSCFA (Fall) 2007
2nd Place PSCFA (Spring) 2008
Silver Phi Ro Pi 2008
I’ve also broken at numerous tournaments in Parliamentary debate at some of the largest tournaments in the country.

What is more important than my accomplishments is the work and dedication that I have devoted to this activity. Due to some personal issues in the year of 2009 I did not debate in NFA-LD. However, I still wanted to be a part of this activity so I donated my time during the season at tournaments like PSCFA and the Southern California LD Championships. I think it’s important that I mention this because it shows that regardless of what situations might happen during the year I will be committed to this activity in whatever ways I can.

I want to NFA-LD to flourish within Southern California both internally and externally. I want to promote it to administrators and have it be included in more tournaments. I also think that there should be a push to include it in as many individual events only tournaments, because there is a lot of growth in that area. I also have been in contact with some teams like the University of Oregon and Washburn University who have indicated support for a larger growing NFALD circuit, specifically Southern California. I know that the only that Southern California LD will continue to grow is if we have the type of input that will allow us to diversify.
I think that exposing our circuit to more expansive views will allow ideas like the case list work better because there is more of a social pressure to post your cites.

I know that there is a lot to do and we must begin now if we want to make this activity great and continue to grow it.

Jesus Caro
CSU-Long Beach, Debate Team Captain

I think commitment to the activity is a core component of what constitutes a good committee member and I have shown that type of commitment to NFA-LD since I began competing in the event. To be frank, the vast majority of evidence that El Camino had last year was cut by myself. In order to avoid having to run the same generic positions (Federalism/States CP, Spending, etc.), I took it upon myself to cut massive amounts of case-specific cards and disads. Debates where the topic is actually debated are fun. This is not to say that debates that don’t focus on the topic aren’t fun as well. All in all, I feel that this event has the ability to foster critical thinking and research skills in addition to teaching debaters about important topics such as mental health, international politics, and most recently, transportation infrastructure. I think that my love of, and commitment to the activity qualify me for this committee.

Moreover though, I have several ideas for raising the quality of debates in So Cal LD. The case-list project was great in theory, although I think there are a few reasons why it failed (or at least it did in my opinion). First off, there was no case-list specific to Southern California. A So Cal LD only case-list would make information more accessible and thus increase the amount of debaters utilizing the case-list. Moreover though, there was no incentive or motivation for debaters to post their cites. I would strongly advocate for disclosure as I feel it enhances the quality of debates and makes it so that people like myself don’t feel compelled to cut massive amounts of generic cards before big tournaments (and then judges/coaches complain about generic arguments). I also strongly advocate the addition of speaker awards for LD seeing to the fact that speaker awards are arguably more in-line with NFA-LD than Parli. If LD is a communicative event, then I feel we should have awards reflecting superior communication. In regards to the So Cal Round Robin, I think all four candidates agree that this would be a great idea to garner support and popularity for LD.

In closing, I hope that my love for the activity as well as the showcased ideas above are enough for you to cast your ballot for David “Bear” Saulet from El Camino College.

Vote Charisma
Robert Christopher Maxwell University of Concordia Irvine

I’m about to tell you why you’re going to rank me as your first choice. And you *will* rank me as your first choice, because what I lack in Robear’s charisma I make up for with an impressive repertoire of Jedi mind tricks.

*waves hand*

All kidding aside, this upcoming season will be the sixth year that I have been involved in debate. I am currently wrapping up my first year at the University of California, Los Angeles, where I am majoring in political science. As a member of the UCLA debate team, I have competed in both parliamentary and NFA-Lincoln Douglas debate. In parli, I reached the double-octafinal round at NPDA Nationals and cleared at a few other tournaments, while in LD, I cleared at most of the tournaments I competed at. Additionally, I competed for four years in policy debate in high school. My senior year I managed to qualify/compete at California State, NCFL Nationals, and NFL Nationals.

Competitive qualifications are not particularly relevant to the position at hand. Every candidate in the field is a good debater. There’s no real need to further expand on this. I would prefer that you vote for me based on my extensive experience, my leadership, and my personal characteristics.

If you read this site with any frequency, you’ve probably read a few of my postings here and there. I am active in the comments section and have even penned a few blog entries myself at Danny’s behest. In that respect, I am already the most involved with the website of all the candidates. My contributions are readily available for public viewing. Should you choose to peruse them, I think they will reveal that I am insightful, sharp, and to-the-point. I’m an intellect. I’m a deeply analytical thinker, and it’s how I operate as an individual. It’s what you can depend on seeing from me as a board member. I don’t cut corners. I don’t shy away from responsibility. I certainly do not fool around. My standards are too high for that.

I want to take a moment and segue back to my past life as well. At CK McClatchy High School up in Sacramento, I was the debate team captain my senior year. I found myself in an interesting predicament, because there were no other upperclassmen on team. Zero. It was dominated by first and second years. I debated alongside underclassmen all year and as a result, my goals were oriented towards mentoring the youngsters rather than winning tournaments. It was a leadership role that required maturity, patience, and a great deal of responsibility. I learned to put the needs of my teammates above my own desires. Instead of chasing TOC bids, I solidified the young foundation of the team and left it in capable hands when I graduated, which is why they are winning tournaments today.

The lesson to take away from this anecdote is that I take debate seriously. This isn’t just a game to me. Awards are nice, and people who know me have all seen my passion for competing on display, but let’s be honest, trophies go for $10 apiece at Bob’s Megadeluxe Trophy Warehouse. If success were measured by the quantity of shiny plastic hardware one has on top of their bookshelf, I could procure it instantly with a swipe of my debit card. But in reality, competitive recognition takes a backseat to what is best for the activity. I volunteer for the Los Angeles Metro Debate League, judging rounds at tournaments and helping underprivileged students cultivate their debate skills. I don’t do it for money. Quite the opposite, LAMDL volunteers participate we because we owe a collective debt to the debate community. Debate has made me who I am, and I am obligated to give back to the activity in the same way. I have the wisdom to understand that and incorporate that into my decision-making.

The length and scope of my participation in debate gives me unparalleled insight. I don’t compete passively. In other words, my tournament experience is not defined by showing up, debating a couple rounds, and going home at the end of the day. By investing myself so heavily outside the realm of competition, I have acquired the expertise that is a prerequisite to understanding the nature of the beast that is debate. I know where the faults in LD lie, where changes are needed. My election to this website’s executive committee will allow me to shape the activity in Southern California for the better.

I apologize for your time.

Humbly yours,

Nick Matthews
UCLA 2013