Rodenmayer,+John


 * Affiliation:** South Garland High School

I've been involved with LD debate since 2004, and have been judging rounds since 2007.

The values end of the debate is important, but I understand that ultimately the "value" achieved in a round is simply a fancy word for "overarching good" like "Justice" or "Societal Welfare." If, however, you and your opponent have potentially opposing values, show some clash and establish superiority. I need to hear some form of standards debate in the round. I view the established affirmative and negative criteria as means by which to weigh the arguments made in the round: whichever side better achieves the established weighing mechanism wins the debate. Keep this in mind if you choose to come to terms with your opponent on a single criteria, and make sure otherwise that you show why your weighing mechanism is more appropriate than your opponent's. In case I have not made this abundantly clear: you absolutely must handle the standards debate. If you do not establish a weighing mechanism for me, I'll make one up. You probably won't like that.

With regards to style, I have no real problem with speed so long as you speak clearly. Signposting will go a long way towards helping me keep up with your arguments. An author's name is not a warrant for an argument, so make sure you establish what a card is saying and why it matters before trying to extend or cross apply. I generally don't like critique, since it usually doesn't give me a reason to vote for either side so much as it gives me a reason not to vote at all. I also don't care very much for pre-standard arguments, since, as I outlined, I view the standard as a weighing mechanism and cannot weigh a pre-standard argument since a weighing mechanism does not yet exist. Observations regarding the nature of the round and such are, on the other hand, perfectly acceptable but I will not treat them as arguments.

I do not like debate rounds that become muddled in definitional debate, and put a lot of value in well constructed, relevant arguments that uphold a clear weighing mechanism. Impact analysis is absolutely necessary since it establishes the extent to which you achieve the established weighing mechanism. You'll get good speaker points from me if you speak clearly, present yourself professionally(this doesn't mean wear a suit, it means take the round seriously), and are not abusive towards your opponent. If you're nasty, your speaker points will reflect it.