Nathan Harness ParadigmLast changed 1/6 6:37P MST
I am a former Lincoln-Douglas debater (in lay Colorado, eg. Pure VC debate, I'm not familiar with other styles of LD) and a fairly new college CXDA debater. Generally my understanding of debate refers back to the former style, but I'm comfortable with most Policy terminology and style.
The Good, The Bad
I'm cool with aggression and passion, you're here because you enjoy it.
That said lets talk about spreading, if you spread, that's fine as long as I have your case, in order in front of me, don't expect me to follow your frenzied bullshit without a guide to follow.
Give all of your arguments a god damn warrant. Spout about how the other teams plan/status que/my decision is gonna kill people/cause thermonuclear war/make the internet slow (actually that last one's probably good in of itself, if you manage to link to that props man), it wont be a voter unless you can explain why those things are bad and why I have a duty to vote against them. If you refuse to do that I'm not going to consider your "harms" in my decision. The same goes for any Ks.
I will immediately be more likely to vote for you if you can boil down this debate to base philosophy, the best debate is value vs. value (using LD terms, but same goes for other formats) with plan vs status quo/counter-plan taking a supporting role.
The role of the ballet is to chose the best debater, if you want me to act otherwise you ought to be ready to actually convince me of it (which will almost always make you the better debater).
If you're in a policy round and aren't willing to send me and your opponents your speeches, I will not vote for you.