Garrison,+Lance

I debated in high school (which was WAY too long ago) doing LD, policy (two man debate) and extemp. I am a parent judge, but somewhat more than just a lay judge. Recently, I have been gaining an education in how modern LD is conducted and in particular the roles of plans, counterplans, Ks, etc. I am reasonably comfortable with the way things are done, and am open to these more diverse and technical arguments.

K's obviously have their place in modern debate, so feel free to run them. However, be aware that links to the current topic must be very well articulated. Just pulling a K out as a tactical approach to try to confuse your opponent rather than honestly debate the issue is really not acceptable. Similarly, Skepticism is a tough argument to make within the framework of LD debate (which a priori assumes some objective morality), but I have an open mind, so go for it if you feel that you can support it.

I am a scientist, so I value analysis and an honest interpretation of the evidence. I am well versed in the major philosophical ideas and theories that form the basis of LD debates. I definitely lean more toward strong framework debates based on a clearly articulated philosophical basis. Evidence has its place, but I do expect it to be tied back to the framework.

My philosophy is relatively simple. You should build arguments on a solid logical foundation and a consistent flow of ideas. I do not place much value on "appeals to authority". If you present an evidence card from an authority in the field, but their argument or information is unsound, then I will be skeptical of it.

Having said that, I will base my decision on what is presented in the debate and nothing else. I will look to see which of the debaters was able to clearly articulate their logic, provide relevant and meaningful support, and effectively attack the logic of their opponent.

I can handle speed, but really think it is counter to the principles of LD debate which is focused more on the development of ideas than it is on simply throwing as much information on the table as possible.

Aggressiveness is a good thing, but rudeness is unacceptable.

Mostly, enjoy the debate. Ideally, we all will learn something after each round that we didn't know before.