Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD and PF so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD and PF not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.

Repeat: Debate the resolution

One more time: Debate the resolution

Content Warning, I can be sarcastic, below was written with seriousness and some fun in mind =)

So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating, stop, breathe, take another breath, and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please record and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)

If using a K in LD or PF - well at this point you can assume I am not the biggest fan unless I am judging a policy round. The biggest concern, besides taking you off the resolution, is that most debaters do not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that side steps the resolution, please see above. I may be amiss on this aspect, but are there any positive K's, like one that shows why picnics and puppies are amazing!

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Impact, road maps, in LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is LD or PF, not policy !

I'm Riley (she/her)

I'm currently a freshman at American University, majoring in international studies. In high school I did 4 years of congress, 2 years of extemp, and 1 year of (traditional) LD.

Disclaimer: Don't worry if I'm looking down a lot. I promise I'm listening!! I just flow on paper.

tldr: signpost, don't be rude, and go 75% speed if we are online. Send speeches if you plan to spread. Otherwise, go crazy. I'll consider anything (excluding tricks) as long as it's a quality argument and you weigh it.

If you're reading this and I'm your congress judge, kudos to you! Congress is at the bottom.

General:

I don't go for tricks. I don't really understand them, and every explanation I've gotten from my circuit friends makes me dislike them more.

I'm okay with spreading, just make sure to send your speech.

Anything bigoted (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) will end in a loss and a report to tab. Anything rude will lose you some speaks. Anything rude directed towards novices or new debaters will lose you a lot of speaks.

I flow.

LD:

I did traditional LD for one year, mostly locally, so I'm not super familiar with progressive/circuit stuff. The closest I got was the occasional t-shell. That being said, Ks, CPs, theory, etc. all have a clear structure. I should be able to follow if you execute it well.

My biggest pet peeves are new args in the 2AR, and not weighing in the 2AR. I do not consider new arguments in Please, please, please weigh.

Policy:

I've never competed in policy- I've only judged it. Good arguments are good arguments, though, and good structure is good structure. As long as you have that, I'll be able to follow.

Congress:

As a former congressional debater, I think congress paradigms should be the norm. There's so much variance in judge preferences and stylistic preferences that goes unaccounted for otherwise. Authorships should be an introduction to the issue with background. There shouldn't be any pure constructive speeches late- or even mid-round. There should be refutation anywhere you can fit it, and you should be crystalizing if your part of the last few aff/neg cycles.

Style is nice, but not without substance. Your 1 minute introduction is not worth sacrificing a point. At the end of the day, it's congressional debate. Please debate.

Your priority should be to give a speech, no matter how bad you think it will be. A mediocre speech on every bill will get you better ranks than one good speech on one bill.

A note to potential POs- I have POed. I know the rules, and I won't tank your rank for it.

Hello, I'm Kate, a senior at Eastern Michigan University. I have been out of the debate for awhile now, and my paradigm might be a little outdated. With that, this is what I know and what will help you understand how to best win me over as a judge :)

In short, my paradigm depends on what event you are competing in, so I will break all that down below. For the most part, please be kind. Do not be rude or condescending in the round. My speaker points usually range from 25-30. If you are rude during a round, I will drop you. I am considerate of all tech issues that may arise, as I am not that tech-savvy myself. Please be mindful and do not take advantage of this.

I do not disclose in rounds, no matter the event. I have never seen the education or advantage of disclosure, so I tend to favor not disclosing unless I have to.

For world schools

Worlds Schools Debate relies on style and strategy. I believe this to be a conversational debate where rhetoric and argumentation can come into play. As a third speaker, this should not be another rebuttal. I want to see the breakdown of arguments through either questions or key areas of analysis. You should be answering at least three questions each speech, and I am okay with multiple people asking points at the same time. With that, please be respectful and mindful of the speaker. Points of clarification are also fine but keep them brief: these are not rebuttals. There are no follow-ups in Points of Information, so be concise with your wording when asking a question.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask before the round. I will not go over my entire paradigm with you. Please do not ask me what my paradigm is, as I will be very angry with you :(

For LD

If you are in LD, do not look at my policy paradigm, they are separate for a reason. I was a traditional debater all through high school, but I was also successful on the national circuit, so I know my way around progressive LD. I am okay with speed but not spreading: there is a time and place for spreading, and it is not in LD. also, for most of my debates, I would say I am truth>tech.

YOU MUST HAVE A VALUE AND A VALUE CRITERION. There is no plan text in LD, there is no solvency on the aff. If you plan to run a counterplan, don't. If you do not have these or plan to run these, you do not want me as a judge. I believe this is a philosophical debate, and thus you should focus on the framework heavily throughout. I really hate theory and would not like to see it, often times it gets very abusive and I cannot follow it.

Cross-examination is always my favorite, and I like it when used wisely, so take advantage of that without being rude. I have to see the clash to find a winner. Clash on whose evidence was better or more recent doesn't cut it. I want to know who had the better impacts, value, weighing mechanism- this should also show up in your KVIs in the last speech.

For PF

I would rather see clash on arguments than cards. pf is an on-balance debate which means that at the end of the round, you should be telling me what you are winning and how you out-weigh on impacts, solvency, framework, etc. every speech should essentially be different and have its own reasons for being there, so I don't want constant rebuttals throughout the whole round. I appreciate the whole picture of what the pro and con worlds look like.

speed is okay, but don't spread, and please sign-post throughout the round and the speeches. I want to know what I am putting on my flow and where it needs to go. line-by-lines are also cool in pf. If you are calling for cards you should have a pretty good reason to call the card I think more time is simply wasted on calling for every single piece of evidence when you aren't even making an attack on the evidence you do call.

For Policy

I am a tech>truth for policy so please make sure that if you are running arguments you are not running them to waste time but to win them. I am okay with speed and spreading as long as I have the doc and you slow the tags down for me. I am more familiar with stock issues within the debate, but I am a tabula rasa when it comes down to it. I really don't like affKs so be aware and try to avoid them around me as much as possible. If you want to win with me as a judge, tell me what you have won and how you have won it in the 2NR and 2AR, and if you are running something you know I don't particularly like, spend more time on it.

topicality- only run this if you plan to keep it in the 2NR, but if not then don't run it just to waste time. I am all too familiar with running T on a random word just to waste your opponent's time, but I would rather see fewer arguments and more impacts.

Ks- I really don't like Ks all too much unless it is a really fleshed-out K that not only makes sense but also creates a valuable debate. I think there are a ton of really good Ks that you can find, I am more familiar with: Cap K, Neolib, Hauntology, psychoanalysis K, and afropes K. I know some of these can be a little older but if you know of Ks that might be similar then it would be best to try that then something that is like way off. YOU MUST HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. I have seen too many Ks run without alts which kind of defeats their purpose.

theory- not gonna lie I never ran theory as a policy nor LD debater, but I have seen it and I don't like it. often theory can get really abusive and if it comes to that within a round I will drop you for it. if you need to run theory then make it good and simple or I will not be able to follow it and thus I cannot vote on what I do not know.

CPs- they're great, I've always loved a good CP debate and would vote on these easily as long they are good and you have won it.

tag team CX is fine with me as long as it doesn't get too abusive and the person who is supposed to be asking and answering questions is the one mainly talking. I don't use prep when flashing evidence just don't abuse that or I will start timing it if I need to. if you have any questions or if I have missed anything pls ask any questions but pls read the paradigm. I will drop you for things that are not followed on the paradigm.

For PFD I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate For LD I am a traditional judge, believing LD is not Policy, please stick the tenants that established what LD was and still should be. Speed is okay, I can flow, but if it sounds like you are choking when speaking, you are speaking too quickly and those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate

I did debate all 4 years of high school, so I should be able to keep up with most of the arguments that are made, but I prefer ground realistic arguments over abstract impacts that have a small chance of happening. I did mainly public forum in high school and know this format best, but I am familiar with most other formats as well. Although I can understand faster talking, this does not mean I will understand the argument as a whole when a competitor talks very fast, so it is to the competitors' benefit to pace themselves throughout their speeches. Cards are necessary in round to prove the argument that is being presented, but this does not mean that cards trump logic in all cases. If someone explains why a card does not apply with logic that I understand and stands in the round, I will take this evidence. Although the goal of a debate is to try and win, you must be civil in round to other competitors. When it comes to this though, I will be able to recognize the difference between being aggressive and attacking your opponent in round compared to being assertive when your opponent is being aggressive towards you, so feel free to stand up for yourself if you opponent is being overly aggressive in round.

I have been a coach for about 12 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. This is especially important in this virtual world, when certain computer microphones struggle to keep up with you. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judges at all times. I will not tolerate inappropriate behavior during speech and debate rounds.

Debate

Always be sure to ask your judge and your opponent if we are ready before you begin a speech.

Remember that presenting a clear argument takes precedence over speed.

If you are in the middle of a sentence and time is up (either during a constructive or cross-examination), I will allow you to finish your sentence.

I look for a well-developed case that includes clear identification of the value, value criterion, contentions, points of clash, and voting issues.

You may use your electronic device to time yourself, but keep in mind that your judge is the official timekeeper in the round. Please be sure that your device is in silent mode.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself if you are not speaking. You can unmute during your speeches and cross-examination periods.

Speech

I will be happy to provide you with time signals. Please let me know before you begin the specific time signals that you would like (i.e.., 5 down, fist at 10, etc.)

Most importantly, have fun!

For virtual tournaments please keep yourself muted when you are not performing.

Please refrain from texting and playing on your phone during other students' performances.

World Schools Debate

As World Schools Debate is not the same as policy or Lincoln-Douglas Debate, please refrain from spreading during the round. Your speech should be delivered at a conversational pace. Be sure to make eye contact and deliver your speech instead of reading word for word from your paper. World Schools Debate focuses on both the quality of the arguments and the quality of speech delivery.

Please make sure that your POIs are limited to 15 seconds each. If you do not wish to entertain an opponent's POI at a given time, please do so respectfully. Use your discretion about when to address a POI, but please make sure that you are not rejecting EVERY POI attempt during your speech. There are no POIs during the first and last minute of each constructive speech. POIs are also not permitted during reply speeches.

You may use a cell phone (placed in airplane mode) to time yourselves during the round. The judge is the official timekeeper. NSDA does not allow the use of computers during the round, so please make sure that all computers are away.

Hello! I am Michelle and I primarily competed in policy and Lincoln Douglas in high school in both progressive and traditional styles for both events. I also competed in Worlds 

Evidence

- please do not spend your entire time arguing which author has more phds.

- it is fine to point out how one author is a random person running a blog compared with a college professor; however, you still need to address the inherent logic.

- even if you have evidence supporting an argument, make sure you can also provide analytics and demonstrate you understand your evidence. make an argument, dont just read evidence

- if you don't have evidence, make sure you have solid analysis.

Questioning

- I don't do flex prep, cx is an important time to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of your case and topic.

- be civil during cx

Speed & Clarity

- Although, I am fine with some speed, arguments and warrants need to be carefully enunciated and explained. If you are going too fast, I will say clear. After the third clear, I will simply stop flowing (this does not apply to worlds, do not spread)

- Please signpost and have clear explicit extensions of arguments/cards. However don't just say extend weller 17, explain the significance.

Timing

- Please time yourselves and your opponents if you would like. I will also be keeping time. You can finish your sentence quickly once time is up.

- Use ALL of your prep time. You can always make your speech better. I will dock points if there is time left on either prep or speech time (I give a 10 sec leeway for speech)

Additional

- I like "even if " arguments. Don't just have only one response unless it is an extremely well developed response.

- weigh the round, spoon feed me why I should vote for your side. Assume I know nothing and I am a blank slate

 

*****Lincoln Douglas Specific

Framework

- If you are in Lincoln Douglas, there needs to be a framework (value and vc) (regardless if you are traditional or progressive) as it is suppose to be a philosophical debate. If you completely drop framework and the opponent points it out i will vote for the opponent but I will not be happy about it. I cannot evaluate something if I do not have the mechanism to evaluate it by.

- If you run morality as a value, please do not just say "ought indicates a moral obligation hence the value for today's round is morality" or "because the resolution has the word ought, the value is morality." explain the significance and importance of prioritizing morality. If you run morality as a v, have someone back it up and have actual standards.

- I especially like it when you tie actual philosophy into the framework and throughout the case instead of only an impact calc. If you run phil, make sure you understand it and can explain it simply.

- DO NOT drop framework after the 1AC or the 1NC.

Other

I prefer a traditional debate but I will vote on most things if well explained.

- No tricks or performance

- if you are running a cp, make sure its case specific and the aff can't just perm it.

 

****FOR NCFL - cp are not permitted by bylaws but i can't do anything unless the other students calls it out and makes it a voter

- if you are running a k, make sure you understand and defend the epistemology and ontology. Also even if you are an expert on post or pre-fiat Ks, explain it simply to me and your opponent.

- it is going to be hard for me to vote on theory alone. if you are running theory, make sure it actually makes sense and isn't super generic. You need to weigh standards, voters, and justifications for paradigm issues. If you do run theory, do not ONLY run theory. Don't run shoe theory or stuff along those lines.

- Make sure you have kvis in your last speech and do some weighing of both the practical and moral implications.

- if your opponents drops and argument or you win an argument, you need to mention it

****FOR WORLDS

take your opponents on their highest ground and then explain how they lose regardless. 

Ask POIs!!! can be question or statement. Be strategic with your pois where it is when they are asked, how they are asked, or who is asking.

please stand for POIs

*brownie points if you run something more phil heavy, but only if you understand it 

email: mzheng@hamilton.edu