I do not like speed, as I prefer to understand the arguments and prefer arguments that address the resolution. Off-topic arguments, except a developed and specific CP are not appreciated. This includes K's and theory. I believe there is a carefully worded resolution for a reason, and prefer arguments that address that. Negatives who ignore the aff case are, I believe, abusive to the spirit of debate. File sharing should take place quickly, so as to not affect prep time. I would rather hear fewer well-developed arguments than a plethora of unlinked and spurious arguments.I am old-school and still flow rounds by hand, although I can use the computer. The flow is just not as complete. I can and will judge all forms; this is my preferences.

-I want to hear a coherent framework and a congruence between your value and VC.

-I'd really prefer nothing racist, sexist, queer/transphobic, etc.

-I can handle a reasonable level of speed, but you need to ensure that I'm able to catch everything on the flow. That means if you're spreading some goofy interp of Heidegger, I'm not going to be getting everything at 400 words per minute.

-I won't do any debating for you, which means that I want you to give me the voters, the clash, and the arguments.

Why should I prefer your argument/author/evidence? I need you to tell me.

But if the AFF tells me to prefer Plato over Derrida because Plato is older and the NEG doesn't dispute this, then I'll accept the AFF's absurd argument.

-I don't care if you sit or stand.

-I do care that you treat your opponent (and your judge) with some level of respect.

-I'll listen to RVIs, but I tend to have a high threshold for accepting them.

-I formerly was a Policy debater and will be able to follow any theory/offense arguments that you pull over to LD. (Topicality, DisAds, Kritiks, etc.)

-I'm generous in accepting extensions through the 1AR.

-I'm cool with NEG conditionality as long as it's not totally contradictory

-If it helps you, you can imagine me with a Tabula Rasa paradigm - if that doesn't help, you can trust that I'll focus on the voters you give me and, aside from my distate for racist/sexist arguments, I'll flow anything.

For detailed thoughts on the hows and whys of framework debating, please see my professional profile on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100054643951460). You may learn something.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (scroll down for PF):

First, some general thoughts: (1) the affirmative debater must defend the resolution; (2) the negative debater is not required to present a case and may choose solely to deconstruct the case offered by the AFF; (3) Lincoln-Douglas is the most philosophical form of academic debate, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; (4) I should not feel, during the debate, that I am listening to a one-on-one version of policy debate; debaters should defend the ethics of their respective positions; (5) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists to present a paradigm as to how the audience and the judge should evaluate the debate and place it in one of four quadrants (deontological/individualist, deontological/collectivist, consequentialist/individualist, and consequentialist/collectivist), clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions and their significance for the debate to follow through definitions and observations. Both debaters should present (1) a paramount value that is an abstract concept/value (ex: "Justice") and (2) a value criterion/criteria that is an operationalized version of the premise; it is a statement, with a noun and a verb, of something that is achieved through upholding/negating the resolution (ex: "protecting the property rights of citizen taxpayers"). Even if the NEG is not going to present a positive case, it still has to present a framework and argue what premise and criterion is upheld through the negation of the AFF case. To reiterate, the value is AN END IN AND OF ITSELF while the criterion is A MEANS TO AN END. With the present resolution (March/April 2024), the AFF framework must be in alignment with rehabilitation. In fact, it is acceptable for the AFF to present "Rehabilitation" as the paramount value.

Third, some thoughts on rationale: (1) if the resolution contains the phrase "when in conflict," then the AFF debater must briefly present a "conflict scenario" that explains how or why two independent values would come into conflict with each other; the NEG debater should grant this scenario unless it is abusive; (2) the primary task of the AFF is to defend its case and this should take precedence over attacking the NEG case if time does not permit both in the same level of detail; (3) the primary task of the NEG is to attack/clash with the AFF case and this should take precedence over defending its case if time does not permit both; (4) the NEG debater should spend at least the last two minutes of the NR departing from the flow and focusing exclusively on the voting issues; and (5) the AFF debater should use the 2AR to exclusively explain the voting issues.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both debaters bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a debater is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the debater requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE major voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on cross examination: (1) use the CX to ask and answer questions and not to make points or speechify or grandstand; I do not flow CX, so these points will not be recorded; (2) the debater conducting the CX may cut the other debater at any time when answering; this will not be construed by me as being rude; time belongs to the one asking the questions and not the one answering them; and (3) do not use the CX to ask for and exchange evidence; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

PUBLIC FORUM:

First, some general thoughts: (1)the affirmative/PRO team must defend the resolution; (2) public forum is the most audience friendly form of debate that exists, therefore the strategy and choices employed by both teams in the debate should reflect this fact; and (3) I always prefer quality of argumentation over quantity.

Second, some thoughts on framework. Framework exists for two purposes: (1) to clarify ambiguous or nebulous terms or phrases in the resolutions; and (2) to present a thesis that will guide the argumentation offered.

Third, on rationale or case: (1) in the B team's first constructive, it may choose to present an opposition case, criticize the A team's case or a mixture of both; if the B team chooses to present a case, it should structure its case for maximum clash with the A team's case (and highlight for the judge when a contention directly clashes with an A team contention; (2) in the A team's second constructive, if B team presents a case, the A team should focus on attacking that case and not attempt to extend its initial arguments beyond a simple "pull through our case as unattacked" response; if the B team does otherwise, it should attempt to address the entire flow; (3) same holds true for the B team's second constructive; it should attempt to both attack the A case and respond to the A team's attacks on the B case (this is the price paid for speaking second and deferring to this speech any response made against the A case in the first constructive); (4) the first rebuttals/summary speeches need not address point-by-point, given limited time, both teams can pick and choose what they wish to highlight as major points of clash; and (5) the second rebuttals/final focus speeches should delineate the voting issues of the debate and explain why your team wins those voting issues; the points of clash and the voting issues do not have to be the exact same things and should retain some flexibility.

Fourth, on evidence: (1) I would strongly recommend that both teams bring hard copies of their evidence into the debate as it makes exchanging them a great deal quicker and easier than passing around laptops; (2) if a team is going to call for/request evidence, this is how it should occur - a) request the evidence in a speech as part of an attack on the opposition's argumentation; b) immediately after the speech, the requested evidence should be offered; the team requesting the evidence either has to burn prep time to read it or read it during the next segment/action in the debate; c) the response to the request should be addressed in the very next available speech; and (3) if a challenged is issued regarding evidence (falsification, misrepresentation, out of context, etc.), the outcome of that challenge will be THE ONLY voting issue in the debate.

Fifth, and finally, on crossfire: (1) use the crossfire to ask and answer questions and not to make points, speechify, grandstand; questions do not begin with the phrases "Is the A/B aware of . . . " or "Does the A/B realize . . . "; I do not flow crossfire, so these points will not be recorded, they must be referenced in the very next succeeding speech; and (2) do not use the crossfire to ask for and exchange evidence, especially at the end; I have outlined my preferred manner for challenging evidence above.

For Lincoln Douglas debate, it is absolutely necessary to construct a value framework to win a round. A properly constructed framework includes a value and value criterion with adequate links. The value must be philosophically grounded and function as the consistent basis for the rest of the case.

I am comfortable with speed, unless your speed is trying to replace argumentation with quantity of evidence. Plans and counterplans cannot replace framework, but I will not automatically vote down a plan. Also, K arguments can be acceptable, but are inherently vulnerable to a quality T and superior framework. If you do not adequately link your K to the topic, I will not vote for you.