I believe in virtue being the most important factor when it comes to making ethical decisions, being more important than rights, justice, and utilitarianism (though all are important and play their significant roles). However, virtue must be authentic, and having inauthentic virtue is a weak, pretentious position to take.

Debate should be fun and educational. It should attempt to expand the mind by exposing people to ideas they may not have considered before or by forcing people to defend their ideas against what other people see as flaws in them. So if you want to get high speaker points from me be civil, have fun, and make it easy for me to flow your arguments. Jokes or references that degrade people or groups of people (especially those in the round) will cost a debater speaker points.

Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

My debate background: 4 years in college Policy and CEDA and 4 years of Policy/LD in high school. Coached for over 10 years; qualified students for state and national tournaments in LD. Judged tournaments for over 30 years and judge over 70 rounds per year.

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the argument. A really good disad with good evidence that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling.

Cross examination is valuable. Cross-ex should be more than reread this evidence and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points; a bad one will hurt them.

Debaters should verbalize the qualifications of the authors they are citing to support their arguments. Smart, sophisticated arguments about the quality of competing pieces of evidence make me happy. I consider qualification/source quality arguments decisive and will not be afraid to discard from consideration a piece of evidence that is proven unqualified or unreliable.

I prefer debates that focus around a few central arguments. Six or seven off-case arguments is extreme.

Preferences

Ø Well-articulated analytical arguments are of equal weight to me as evidence, unless it is concerning a statement of fact, then the evidence will be valued higher.

Ø Attack the warrants in the evidence.

Ø If you offer an argument it is a voting issue (how heavily it weighs is to be determined). It is odd to assume a speaker will spend time reading a T shell in the 1NC and not expect me to vote on it. Therefore saying, "T is not a voter" will not do anything to make me not evaluate T. Likewise, saying "T is a voter" will not do much for your side either.

Ø Prioritize what I should vote on in the 2NR or 2AR (T, kritik, policy impacts). Give me a reason for the hierarchy of issues. If you want to argue that I should use a certain paradigm to evaluate the round, argue why your paradigm has a priority.

Ø Weigh the issues I should vote on. Is the timeframe for the DA faster than the case advantages? Does the CP w/ a small solvency deficit and net-benefit outweigh case? Tell me why!

Specifics

Jargon Eliminate words like card, drop, T, CP, etc. Use sophisticated terms to enhance persuasion.

Timing No magic time exists in a debate. Once the round begins, the clock is running and I will provide time signals. It is either speaking time if someone is talking or prep time. We all bear responsibility to adhere to the time limits.

Case Since aff has responsibility to initiate debate its good for neg to argue specific

interpretations.

Debate

Theory Good if properly developed and articulated.

Topicality Use it if the aff violate some word(s) in the resolution. Tell me what interpretation I am using (aff or neg's and why it's the best); how the aff either meets or does not meet it, and what the standards are I am voting on.

DAs Use them. Neg needs to prove somehow it is unique to the aff's plan, the aff plan links and through internal links leads to an impact that outweighs case or is a net benefit to a counter plan.

CPs OK by me. Neg needs to prove how it solves aff's harms or advantages and has a net benefit. Unconditional, dispositional, conditional are all-good as long as you can theoretically justify that framework. AFF's: Do not be afraid to argue and go for theory on CPs, I will vote on theory.

Kritiks I would HIGHLY recommend you do not run them. I would rather hear the most generic policy arguments over a kritik any day. In short, I guess you just need to know that I do not want to hear a kritik argued, but if you force me to, I will vote on it.

I want to see a policy debate first and foremost. If that's not likely to happen, I would then prefer to vote on theory.