Jeramy Acker

After reading paradigms over the years, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it's an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counter plan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counter plans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Debate how you choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Debates: I do not like theory (this includes Ks). Don't run it unless you have a good reason to. It will be held against you otherwise. Clash is important for any debate. I tend to vote most on impacts. Impact calculation is extremely important in the round and needs to be utilized. Rulecalling for the sake of rulecalling is abusive and a waste of time for the debate and my time. I look for sources, especially when you're introducing new arguments and reading off statistics. In the end, I want you to show me how well you understand the topic, your case, and the arguments you're making. I want to be able to come out of round with the confidence to say "I learned something really interesting here".

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

Please put me on the E-mail chain: baileybrunyer7@gmail.com

I am a debater at WSU and I have been apart of the debate community for 5 years. I have debated and/or debated against almost every argument that you have probably ever heard of. I have been switching between being the 2A and the 2N almost my whole debate career. Honestly just do whatever you want and if you win it, I will vote on it. Here is some more specific shit.

Affirmative

There are two thing that you need coming out the 1AC

1: An impact that is generated for the status quo

2: A way to solve those impacts

If you don't have both or either of these, there is very little chance that I will vote for you

FW

All of debate is a performance and all research must first require an interpretation of how debate should look or happen. I believe that the best interpretation is that there is always room for any interpretation about debate. Form there we can debate on which interp is just better, that may include predictability or it may include inclusivity.

DA

Offense is key! if you don't have this on at least one of the flows, there is very little chance that you could win. I believe that a team could win on running only defense, but no one wants to give or listen to that 2NR. I don't think that enough 2As will go for things like the theory level threshold of the link. For example, I think there is something to be said about fill-in DAs because it seems to not be an effectual consequence of the Aff but rather just something that happens after the plan. On the other side, I think that there are issues with that arguing swell. The takeaway should be that DAs should not just get away with the links that they read if they seem unfair on a meta level of any offense.

CP/Alternatives

I really like seeing unique CP/alternatives but if you don't have a net ben then there is no reason to vote for them if the Aff. teams reads a perm, duh. Even if you have a boring CP but you think it could win, then read it. With that said, I think it would be really cool to see some perm theory.

Theory

I really like seeing good theory debates but something that I would like to see more theory shells talk about voting issues that are more kritikal but I done;t mind education and fairness being the voting issues.

I am a lay judge lacking extensive experience judging. I am currently a legal professional with limited knowledge of this year's topics, so please explain your arguments well. I am okay with you running any argument that is not offensive, as long as you explain it well enough. I have little familiarity with kritiks and theory, if you choose to run these arguments make sure you are very thorough (paint a picture) and leave me without any major questions regarding the argument itself or how I should analyze it in the context of the round. I will be flowing to the best of my ability.

Clarity > Speed

Throughout the round, be respectful and passionate! When you want me to remember something specific, make sure to emphasize it.

At the end of the round you should write my ballot for me. Use your final speeches to make clear why you should win, this improves my ability to provide you with a fair decision. I will be as objective as possible in how I analyze each round, that means if your opponent makes a bad argument you should point it out and tell me why it is weak.

Email: awesleycarter@gmail.com

Background: I debated LD and policy. Currently coaching.

Paradigm: I don't have any strong preferences regarding style; I'll vote on any K, theory, or stock case if you're winning the flow. I think K's are fun to watch.

- Stock: I love a good policy debate. Weigh your impacts. Tech>truth.

- Critiques: Interesting K's will always have a special place in my heart. I'm happy to vote on any K you want to read although I might not be an expert on the lit base.

- T/Theory/Framework: My threshold is pretty reasonable; I will pull the trigger if you can prove in-round abuse or if you're clearly winning the flow. The more organized your speeches the easier it will be for me to tell if these conditions have been met.

Other Thoughts:

Speaker Point Scale:

_29-30: Excellent

_28-29: Pretty good

_27-28: Hmmm

_25-27: Needs work

- I default to the assumption that debate is a game and fairness is a voter. I can be convinced otherwise, but I think both sides should have a potential path to the ballot.

- I believe that disclosure is good for debate.

- Prep time should stop running when you are ready to speak (speech doc is uploaded, flash-drive has left your computer, email is sent, etc.) I'll trust the debaters to time each other.

- Flex prep is great.

- Far-fetched link chains do not always let you weigh high-magnitude impacts. If your internal links are flawed to the point of being meaningless the impact scenario is no longer offense for you.

- I'm a sucker for a good overview.

- The Speed K is a great argument whose time has not yet come. I'm down to vote for it if you do it well.

*Use outside sources to back up your position and site those sources (major plus from me when you can tie in with current events when applicable)

*In Debates, don't ignore your opponents arguments/attacks on your position or respond by only repeating your previous arguments. Address their attacks/arguments directly with your own counter-arguments. Even if you don't feel like it's a strong counter-argument, I would rather have you address it than ignore it.

*Organize and lay out your presentation/speech/arguments...I appreciate it when you even take a minute at the beginning to give me a roadmap of your speech. Sign posting is also appreciated. I also am impressed with well placed transitions used to tie thoughts, positions or arguments together.

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Experience: 

I debated Policy and Spar at Salem Hills High School, and plan to use my experience in competition to judge. 

Debate Preferences: 

Spreading: I enjoy spreading, particularly in 1AC's and 1NC's, and spreading can be acceptable during 2AC and 2NC, however I prefer topics being expanded upon and strengthened during your allotted time rather than being sped through and losing time.

Time: I like the time being used up. Though you can call time short and I won't judge much on it, I'd rather you expand on your ideas and build. It'll create a stronger argument for you, and will generally give you an advantage. 

Cross-Ex: I do not judge cross-ex. Any arguments you make are void unless directly stated in your AR and NR. Cross-ex is for you to build your arguments and clarify questions, and new points made within the examination will not be written down as a new point unless you directly make the point in your next speech. 

Taglines: Make your taglines are clear. Though I will have your documents, do not assume I caught your "next DA". Slow down, say it clearly, and summarize your taglines. 

Email Chain: We will create an email chain before round, however do not rely on your email chain. Give a speech (especially during AR and NR) and don't just read from your document. Expand, explain, summarize like you are explaining to someone who knows nothing about the subject. 

Notes:

I am new to the topic so please explain acronyms

Be generally friendly to everyone in round (competition, me, and especially yourself and your partner)

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

My background is in policy debate, but I coach all forms of debate. For policy, I'm generally a stock issues judge, at the end of the round, I see who won on stock issues and/or who won on impact calculus. I tolerate spewing/spreading and progressive debate, but I want to see you impact your arguments (explain to me what your evidence means in the round). If you run Ks, DAs, I want to see more specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer more traditional debate with on-case arguments. I also look at good reasoning, good clash, and good presentation/persuasion delivery in the round.

Roy Highschool '19

eneiswanger@gmail.com

I did PF and Policy debate in high school, each for one year.

Tech ------------X------------------------------Truth

Flows the doc --------X----------------------------------It's on you to be comprehensible

Spin > Cards ----------X--------------------------------Cards > Spin

Poker face-------------X-----------------------------You'll know my thoughts on everything

Not ideological in clash debates -----------------------------X--------------No plan no ballot

Pomo/high theory expert -----------------------------------------X-Whatever the opposite of that is

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------------X----------------------------Delib k2 solve warming/Movements

Counter-defining and offense/defense on T --------------X----------------------------Impact turning everything

2NR needs TVA to win-----------------------------------X------Overrated/unnecessary most of the time

K links to the plan -------------------------------------X-------Unnecessary if you win framework

Extinction outweighs/impact turn vs K ---------------------------------X----------Perm/no link

Conditionality bad -------------------------------------X--------Infinite and good

1NCs that proliferate incomplete arguments-----------------------------------X-----Aff gets new answers

Bad for process/"cheating" CPs ------------------------------X--------------Being neg's hard

"We're topical but don't defend implementation"-------------------------------------X------Makes literally 0 sense

Theory debates hinge on ideology -------------------------------X-------------Execution is everything

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs ----------------------------X--------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Intrinsicness bad -----------------------X---------------------Better for it than most

Logical internal link presses/recutting their ev --------------X----------------------------Impact D to everything

"Insert this reHLing" --------------------------------------X-----Gotta read it

Bathroom breaks and small talk ---------------------------------------X---Decision time is short

Having to read an essay with my thoughts on debate ---------------------------------X-----Short judge philosophies

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

TECH >>>> TRUTH

Debated PF at Park City for 4 years (2019-22) mainly for nat circuit but local too.

Idk the resolutions that well so explain them but you should do that anyway. Extend throughout the round pls.

Speed is fine, send me the speech doc tho and add me to the email chain: mobrienpc2004@gmail.com

Sign posts are important so I can stay organized, don't stand up before your speech and give me an "off-time roadmap" just say the order of your speech.

I don't evaluate cross at all, if something important happens bring it up in the next speech.

Policy: I know a little bit of policy stuff, you can run anything as long as it's explained well. I ran k's in pf so I know how they work pretty well. CP's and DA's are cool as long as they're not confusing. Theory is fine too. Disclosure is necessary for policy, if you don't disclose I'll dock 1 speaker point.

PF: K debate and theory is more fun than stock args but I won't count it against you if your case is stock. I don't believe in frameworks for PF unless you're running something progressive or interesting. CBA is standard so I'll default to that. Weighing is very important but explain why I should weigh the round in one way and don't just say "we save a million people" and expect me to care without explaining why that matters. Disclosure is good but not necessary.

Run anything you want as long as it's not racist, homophobic, xenophobic... If it is I'll just drop you.

Note: If you run progressive args poorly I just won't evaluate it and that would be kinda embarrassing.

Ask if you have questions

I am a former Policy and F Extemp debater.

Policy:

For the Aff I expect them to be able to uphold their stock issues, their case does not have to be catered explicitly to each stock issue, but the links to the SI must be clear for myself and the Neg. I love analytical arguments so long as they make sense and are easy to swallow. Explaining your case when the topic is as complex as the 2022-23 topic is extremely important. I do not know everything about Cybersecurity, Biotechnology, or Artificial Intelligence. However for most common knowledge facts like where Russia or Ukraine are, I do not need a in depth explanation. I love an Aff team that is prepared. What that means is I expect strong rebuttals to the Negatives case regardless of what it may be.

For the Neg I do not like CPs. If you use one in a round please know I will not weigh it very much in the round. I prefer a neg that focuses on the Affs approach, I do not need an alternative to be presented from the Neg, I just need their arguments to link to the Aff and to be strong. I am fine with progressive Policy but I do like a good mix of traditional included.

Ks are fine, so long as the Aff isn't the one presenting the K. Speed is encouraged but it is okay if you choose not to Spread/Spew. Both teams must agree to tag teaming before the round begins if not I will assume tag teaming will not occur.

You are welcome to time yourself. I will provide hand signals if needed.

Extemp:

For both Foreign and Domestic Extemp I expect at least three credible sources included in the speech. This is the time to truly hone in your speaking skills. There isn't a set speed for everyone, just being eloquent and understandable is what is important to me. I always include body language in my decision for speaks/rankings. Blocking is HEAVILY encouraged, and I love meaningful hand gestures/expressions. I do expect more diversity in sources or argumentation. Don't just stick to what you know, this is a good time to experiment with new ideologies or philosophies that you might not agree with yourself. Emotion is always welcome, just not in excess. I do not allow any notes or illustrations.

You are welcome to time yourself, I will provide hand signals if needed.

Kritiks: I'm familiar with critical literature, but I want the alternative to be explained well because it creates better debate about the method of the alternative. If the kritik literature is not very well known you should create a thesis level argument to provide clarity about the kritik debate.

K Affs: Everything said on Kritiks applies here as well and you should also clearly explain why you reading a k aff is justified.

Theory/T: I think that theory is a legitimate check for abuse and prefer if you're running it strategically and not just as a timeskew. Make sure that your voters are terminalized, I don't want to just be told to "vote for education and fairness," tell me why those matter.

DA's: I'm not a huge fan of linear disadvantages but I will still vote for them. On Uniqueness I'm more likely to believe that uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link if you give me a direction of the status quo instead of the status of it (For example, on an Econ DA it's better to say the economy is improving slowly rather than saying the economy is amazing).

Debate should be fun, don't be a dick.

I am a flay judge. This is my second tournament judging policy; however, I am trained and familiar with the topic.

I want explicit arguments that are easy to flow.

If I can't understand your argument, I can't judge it.

Don't interrupt so much that you are abusive.

Do not say anything racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or mean.

If you want me to flow the round properly, please signpost.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.