Anderson Debate Paradigm

4 years NFA-LD.

please include on speechdrop or file share of choice

Offense/Defense Paradigm

Fine with speed.

Theory:

Will vote on potential abuse.

Condo- I personally think the negative should be allowed as many counterplans as the AFF has adv(s) + 1 (like an agent CP and *number of Advantages* CP(s). I’ll have a very low threshold on condo bad theory if more that are run. To me, at the end of the round only one counterplan should be gone for/squo defended. I don't want to kick an alt for you and vote for the status quo. If the AFF wins that condo is bad then I’d vote aff. If you outtech the AFF on why multiple counterplans are good, then I won’t vote on condo bad. I don’t think “drop the arg not the debater” is persuasive in condo theory debates.

Topicality- I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll vote on reasonability if it’s won. To me, limits is the most important standard, but I think precision or others can be persuasive if the T-interp creates an undue burden for the AFF. The AFF rebuttal would ideally explain why the AFF is a fair parametrization of the resolution and how the AFFs justified are good for x,y,z theoretical reason(s).

SPEC Args- I think most of these are just defensive solvency arguments.

RVI's- no thanks.

Disclosure- I would vote on disclosure theory against either negs/affs. I do not think new affs need to be disclosed. Otherwise, If you’ve done goofed and haven’t disclosed, then you should read a counterinterpretation as to why you shouldn’t have to disclose for X,Y,Z reason and then win offense in favor of that interp. i.e. “Debaters don’t have to disclose if the positions they read are on their team’s wiki/until after the tournament is over” or something like that. Still probably an uphill battle, but if the other debater isn’t that good on the disclosure theory collapse then you could still win the round.

I could vote on Framework against Ks/K AFFs, provided the debater actually wins the FW flow. If the negative is just “They don’t defend the resolution and that’s against the rules,” that's not very persuasive. To me, FW debate is about why limits are good vs why the inclusion of the AFF and the AFFs justified by the AFF’s interp are necessary for X,Y,Z reason.

K

I’d like to know why the worldview promoted by other debater is wrong (link work), why it’s important to reject/stop that kind of thinking (impact work), and how the alternative in some way resolves that worldview.

CP

I’m interested in the extent to which the CP solves the AFF and if an accompanying DA/other source of offense is a bigger deal than any potential solvency deficits/turns on the counterplan.

DA

PTX-Not super persuaded by “my card is from the next day” arguments on uniqueness. I find warrant comparison between the cards on why X,Y,Z political thing will/will not happen to be more persuasive than spamming three UNQ/nonunq cards.

Impact Turns: They often seem strategic to me.

About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

I did PF throughout high school

tl;dr:be organized, be clear, and speak well

super important stuff:

•collapse. I hate overcrowded flows, they make the round a pain for everyone involved. try to have just 1-3 major pieces of offense you're gonna try to go for by FF

•weigh. If you don't and your opponent does, you'll probably lose. tell me what arguments are important, why they're important, and why you're winning them. and don't just bring this up at the end of FF--your weighing can start as early as rebuttal.

•signpost and follow your roadmaps. messy rounds are bad rounds

•don't extend through ink. I'll know, you'll know, and your opponents will know. it's waste of time.

major points:

•don't run plans/advocacies unless you run them in a way that proves they're an inherent advantage of your side

•I prefer that second rebuttal is split, but I'm ok with new defense on the second team's case being done in second summary

•if you think an arg is squirrely, I probably agree. don't waste too much time on these but make sure you respond

•please date your cards (or at least have dates available), it makes the round more fair

Speaker points:

I won't drop points below a 25 unless you've really messed up (rudeness, remarkably poor speaking, etc). outright racism/sexism/homophobia/etc will result in very, very low speaker points. you'll also lose the round for those and I'll go to tab about it. otherwise, just be compelling. your humor and rhetoric are just as important as your evidence and logic

Evidence:

I'll check evidence if I need it to make my decision, if one team tells me to, or if I think it sounds sketchy. severely misrepresented evidence will lose you the round and will probably get you in trouble with tab

ask me any other questions you may have, I'm happy to answer anything!

I did PF throughout high school

tl;dr:be organized, be clear, and speak well

super important stuff:

•collapse. I hate overcrowded flows, they make the round a pain for everyone involved. try to have just 1-3 major pieces of offense you're gonna try to go for by FF

•weigh. If you don't and your opponent does, you'll probably lose. tell me what arguments are important, why they're important, and why you're winning them. and don't just bring this up at the end of FF--your weighing can start as early as rebuttal.

•signpost and follow your roadmaps. messy rounds are bad rounds

•don't extend through ink. I'll know, you'll know, and your opponents will know. it's waste of time.

major points:

•don't run plans/advocacies unless you run them in a way that proves they're an inherent advantage of your side

•I prefer that second rebuttal is split, but I'm ok with new defense on the second team's case being done in second summary

•if you think an arg is squirrely, I probably agree. don't waste too much time on these but make sure you respond

•please date your cards (or at least have dates available), it makes the round more fair

Speaker points:

I won't drop points below a 25 unless you've really messed up (rudeness, remarkably poor speaking, etc). outright racism/sexism/homophobia/etc will result in very, very low speaker points. you'll also lose the round for those and I'll go to tab about it. otherwise, just be compelling. your humor and rhetoric are just as important as your evidence and logic

Evidence:

I'll check evidence if I need it to make my decision, if one team tells me to, or if I think it sounds sketchy. severely misrepresented evidence will lose you the round and will probably get you in trouble with tab

ask me any other questions you may have, I'm happy to answer anything!

As a judge in this public forum debate, I seek three important things. First, keep it simple and clear when you talk. Don't use fancy words that make things confusing. I want everyone, including me, to understand your points easily.

Second, I like to see a good back-and-forth, where you respond to what the other team says. It's not just about saying your own thing; it's about clashing with the other side's ideas. Make sure you're talking directly to each other's points.

Lastly, stick to the main topic. Don't go off on unrelated stuff. Keep your arguments connected to what we're here to discuss. Doing these things'll make the debate interesting and easy to follow, which is what I'm looking for as a judge in this tournament.

I always try to make my decision based on debaters performance without my personal opinions involved. The debaters performance will be graded per clearly organized contentions, persuasive arguments, good cross exam performance, and convincing presentation.

Please speak not too fast, watch your time, and show respects to your opponents.

Hope everyone enjoys the events.

I use she/her pronouns.

I have coached all forms of debate, with students as state champions, national qualifiers, and national outrounds (mainly in LD, but also CX, PFD, and congress). While I am a coach of 20+ years, I like to be treated as a lay judge. My philosophy is that regardless of the style of debate, you should never assume that your judge knows more than you and it is your responsibility to educate them on the topic. That means:

1) I prefer speech habits that emphasize persuasiveness and understanding. Don't spread, make sure to signpost, and think about how you can use your voice to emphasize key points.

2) Avoid topic-specific jargon. We are not researching this stuff to the level that you do as a competitor. Don't throw out an acronym without telling me what it stands for, unless it is a universally-known one (i.e. NATO). Sometimes even terms of art in the resolution aren't really known to the judge, so it is helpful to clarify. That also goes for complex ideas and theories.

3) Explain your arguments/contentions. Just reading card after card does not showcase your logic. Remember the warrant -- WHY does that evidence matter? And with that said, what is the impact? I love a good impact.

I have been coaching Speech & Debate for the past 20 years. I was a competitor for all 4 years of my high school career. I've judged numerous local, regional, state, and national tournaments. The highlight of my judging career came at the 2020 NSDA National Tournament when I was selected to judge Lincoln-Douglas Finals. When it comes to levels of debate, I've seen them all. Below are my event-specific areas of focus that I suggest debaters in the rounds that I judge should consider (but I'm open to whatever you feel works best for you...these are simply my preferences in round).

General notes:

Speed is a factor in every round that I judge. If you spread or speak at a rate in which I would have to read your case on paper to understand what your argument is you will not win a round with me. Delivery matters but so does content. Off-the-wall kritiks I am not a fan of, either. Whatever your position is, it must be logical.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Frameworks are a must. Voters are a must. Go down the flow - stay in order - don't deviate and make your arguments clear at all times. Don't waste time in-round ever. Definitely do not spread...Lincoln-Douglas is meant to be spoken well, not fast (some speed is okay, but nothing excessive). Remember content is good but delivery of the content well is also important. This is the way.

Policy:

The biggest thing I look for in policy is consistency. I am not a fan of kritiks, out-there cases as the Neg, etc. For the round I much prefer standard policy debate. Plans and counter-plans are a must. Go down the flow. Do not spread. Make the round friendly for both teams. Keep track of arguments won on both sides and give me a good crystallization at the end of your final rebuttals. Do not spread. Did I say not to spread? In case I didn't, don't spread...just don't. To make it clearer, spreading = I'm not a fan.

Public Forum:

Speak at a good rate of speed (fast is okay but you absolutely should not spread in PF). Be civil at all times. Do not be condescending unless you want to be marked down severely for it (or possibly lose a round). Be professional in crossfire & grand crossfire. Do not waste excessive amounts of time calling for cards (it's easy to try to be abusive with prep time but I am not the judge to try that with because I am a fan of debating, not evidence scrutinizing so unless you can prove something definitive by calling a card, don't waste too much of our time in-round doing so). Overall, be kind to each other and have a good debate and all will be well. I have spoken.

If competitors are doing an email chain for evidence; Sanchez-villa@trinityrocks.com

Competed in the Louisville, Kentucky Circuit in high school for three years. Graduated with a major in Political Science from the University of Louisville. I am an assistant coach of Trinity High School for the Speech & Debate team and have held that role for four years now. I say this to highlight that I have years of experience in this event and am familiar with many debate styles, philosophies, frameworks and am aware of changing trends in the debate world, that being said Debate is an educational tool and a time for students to practice analytical thinking and persuasive skills in a unique environment unlike school, so please do not spread at a rate that is so fast that it can never be repeated in a public environment, dont go so fast that the only way to flow is off a speech doc because I will ignore it. Evidence calling is a new thing with the advent of technology post-covid but do not make the evidence calling period so long that it delays the debate and ends up being wasted, call for cards that matter to the judge, not your team. Great debate, for me, is one where both sides are understanding of what the other person's case is stating and evaluating and clashing at that crucial point. There are a lot of debates where people run past each others points and do not actually attack the meat of what is being debated causing me to weigh two worlds that have very little to differentiate from. Competitors should be critical of evidence (yes please do stake the round on thats not what your evidence says, and I will read evidence of contention if I believe there is merit to it not claiming what it means, bad card cutting happens to everyone) and claims being made and any connection that they do not make for me as a judge I will not flow. Make my decision for me with your final speech.

(He/Him)

I currently am the Co-Director of Speech and Debate for our team located on Outschool. I've been exclusively judging and coaching LD and PF this season, so I understand most of the terminology that you could throw at me.

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is ethanwvcag@gmail.com

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument, but will vote on drop-the-debater if that argument is warranted out to me (though my threshold for voting on drop-the-debater is pretty high). I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Aff's, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Aff's running Disclosure Theory against Neg's is a viable strategy in front of me.

CP: I don't have a strong personal opinion on conditionality, but I lean towards disliking conditional CP's- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is a little risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world. Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to drop the AFF, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional

K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only attack one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and presumption are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments.

LD (Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd rebuttal must answer all offense that was made in 1st rebuttal. If you want to drop an arg that only had defense read on it, that's more than fine by me. 1st and 2nd summary must extend all offense and defense they plan to go for in final focus. Summary and final focus should look really similar.

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF. Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me. I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can.

2 Tell me why I should be voting for you

3. Disclose your case prior to your speech

4. +1 speak if you can fit the word wowza in cross

Background: 4 years of Public Forum at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School as KESDA champion, KHSSL runner-up and NSDA elimination round qualifier. Consider well-informed on PFD procedures, adequately informed on general domestic politics, fairly uninformed on foreign policy.

Procedure: I will flow arguments to the best of my ability, which is fairly well. Spreading is to your disadvantage; I will always prefer a few coherent and well-defended arguments to a lot of flimsy ones. Despite my experience as a debater, I appreciate speeches that are clear in their definitions and light on jargon, as they are more effective rhetorically.

Notes:

Personal, ad-hominem argumentation will not be tolerated.

In cross examination, it is the responsibility of both parties to lodge sufficient offense. If one team dominates cross, that is to their advantage. Note that this does not excuse teams from ignoring each other's questions or delivering slim/unclear answers.

Front-lining is unnecessary, but looks good. As the first-speakers, you should not use your opponent's failure to frontline (rebut in an immediately subsequent speech arguments you make in your speech) as offense.

Final focus should crystallize the debate into clear voting issues.

Impact calculus will be conducted ONLY to the extent that your links are present. For example, I do not weigh nuclear war without a clear explanation of how escalation will occur.

In the case of contradictory evidence, preference will be given to the debater who provides an adequate reconciliation of the evidence (why both may be true, and why that still benefits your argument) over the debater who argues their opponent's research is unreliable (outdated, biased, etc.)

I don't need your road maps. I won't dock you, but I don't need them.

I do not ask for evidence to prove statements that may be assumed to be true by a member of the general public unless evidence is introduced to the opposite effect. (For instance, there's no need to provide cards for "communism is bad" unless your opponents provide cards for "communism is good.")

EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com

In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Not a fan of tricks

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements