In general, I'm open-minded and tend to be more holistic in my evaluation. In my mind, debate is about convincing and influencing, not about attacking or being mean or rude. I like well-researched evidence and well-organized arguments. Arguments should be delivered in a concise, effective, and respectful way.  Interpret the debate for me and give me a clear justification for voting.

Things you should know:

·        Information source should be credible;

·        Avoid factual, moral, or logical flaws if possible;

·        Engage with your opponent's case. Avoid purely definition-based debates.

·        Being  gamesmanship should be kept to an absolute minimum.

·        Speaking fast is not necessarily effective. I will intervene when you speak too fast;

·        Utilize your time to the maximum;

·        Be confident, but not arrogant;

·        Be polite to your opponent and to me.

Things I don’t like:

·        Misappropriating literature / evidence;

·        Disingenuous or theoretical argumentation;

·        Arguing with me after the round. Feel free to disagree with my vote, but don’t expect me to change my mind.

I did four years of competitive Policy Debate in high school (many years ago), including national circuit tournaments and NFL Nationals; the use of kritiks was only just beginning, even in Policy, which back then was referred to as CX. But, and perhaps as a consequence, I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD (and other non-Policy Debate). Policy Debate techniques/arguments/strategies, such as counterplans, generic disadvantages, and kritiks, are therefore disfavored.

Spreading is okay, as long as (a) I can understand you; (b) you don't sound like you're hyperventilating; and (c) your purpose isn't to overload your opponent with a large quantity of arguments in hopes they'll drop one. In a competition between quailty and quantity, quality wins every time for me. If I can't understand you, it's unlikely your argument or card will end up on my flow pad.

It's important you explain why your value is superior to your opponent's, and that you link your contentions to your framework, and in particular your value. This should be done throughout the round, including in the final Rebuttals.

Warrants are of course important but simply regurgitating what some "expert" said will not go far; you must explain your contentions and sub-points and why your opponent's arguments are wrong. It's easy to read a card; it's much harder to elaborate, contextualize and put the argument in your own words.

Please avoid acronyms, abbreviations and jargon.

One final comment. If you care about your speaker points, be respectful and courteous to your opponent.