Last changed on
Thu February 11, 2021 at 7:00 AM EDT
In order to win the round, you need to fully demonstarte why either the aff/neg world is better. I also expect you to make clear, percise arguments, I cannot spend my time trying to puzzle your arguments together; you need to make them clear.
A few quick notes on specific argumentation:
Speed/Clarity: I'm fine with fast debate, but be careful with clarity. If an argument doesn't make it on my flow, I obviously can't evaluate it. I'll give you one verbal warning if you're unclear. If I still can't flow your arument, it's up to you to notice this and slow down.
Framing: I come into the round assuming that the affirmative should have some sort of advocacy. Of course, I can be persuaded otherwise if your arguments make sense. I believe that whatever route you take should be justified if the other team doesn't necessarily agree. Your job as a debater is to tell me how and why I should evaluate the round under a particular framework.
Weighing: You need to tell me how and what way I should weigh the round, otherwise you risk the chance of me evaluating the debate in a different way than you intended. I prefer that you spend time weighing and strategically layering the debate instead of making more arguments that don't link back or have a coherent ballot story. If empirics clash, I am impressed by a good methodology comparison.
Theory: I'm not the biggest fan of Theory, but I'm more than happy to vote on it if it is run. I don't default to competing interpretations. In fact, I don't like it all that much, and unless you spend some serious time justifying it when you first run your shell, I won't vote someone down if they answer theory without a counter-interpretation.
Speaker points: I love to see witty, entertaining debaters. Read what you’re comfortable with. I don’t mind banter. I do mind being a jerk to your opponents. Keep it classy, entertaining, and fun (or, at least, powerful/passionate) and it will reflect well in speaks. I have my own scale for what I use for speaker points if you are perfect and I feel there is nothing you could've improved on, I will give you a 30. I will give you a 29, for minor mistakes. A 28 for mistakes here and there. A 27 for mistakes throughout your whole entire argument, and Finally a 26, in which means that I feel that you have a lot of room for improvement
Timing: I am the official timer in the round, You are allowed to time yourselves, but please note that my timer is the official one. In order to maximize your speaking time, clarify to me exactly when your intention of starting your time. Also, during prep time, please clarify to me as to whether or not you are using a running prep-time or a specific amount of time.
Definitions: I understand that I need clarification for what specific words mean, but my biggest pet peave in debate is when the round is solely focused on definitions. Unless the definition of a word is a critical part of your argument, please reframe from solely arguing definitions.
I look forward to our round together and wish you the best of luck!
