Lovoll,+Andrea

When judging a debate, I want to see clash. I’m not a big fan of “definition debates,” and discussions on who is following the rules and who is not. Basically, I want you to stay on topic and keep the debate focused on finding the best solution. If you are responsible for getting off topic, I’m less likely to vote for you. If you try to keep the debate focused on topic, I’m more likely to vote for you. If someone is using an abusive definition, though, don't ignore it. Other things I like: __Supporting framework__: Prove you are supporting your own framework. If you can perm opposing arguments to support your framework, or if their framework is already a part of your framework, that's good for you. __Civility:__ Please don’t be rude- it’s distracting and unnecessary. More times than not, when you are really angry and rude to the other team, I’m thinking about how rude you are and how your face is turning purple, rather than your argument. __Fluid organization__: I teach public speaking in classes- and one thing I always say before they give a speech is that the organization of your speech and the clarity of your transitions can make or break you. If you spread, it’s even more important that you make sure I know where you are--the faster you speak the clearer you need to be. __Counterplans__: Extremely important in policy debate. You are trying to persuade of the best solution- so, really, every side should have a solution. In LD & PF, it depends on the resolution. Sometimes it is not necessarily resolutional for the affirmative to have a plan or to even change anything--they are proving a philosophical or theoretical point of view. Basically, if you are LD or PF, use counterplans only if you have a resolution that has a policy lean. __Solvency__: This is really where the ballot goes at the end of the debate. Show me clearly that you solve the problem better than the other guys. Solving for harms is important no matter the style of debate and no matter the resolution __Ads/Disads__: Policy- If the debate is about even, if both the plan and counterplan are equally solvent, I will go to whoever has the best ads/disads. LD/PF- Aff/Pro, you need to show a lot of advantages. If you are Neg/Con, you need to show a lot of disadvantages. That's just part of debate structure in LD/PF. __Evidence__: It does not take the place of an argument, it supports an argument. Please use strong, credible evidence. Unbiased & peer reviewed are obviously better than op-eds and politically-leaning publications. Recency also matters.

As another note, I do not support the melding of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with its own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.