Tidd,+Kevin

Debate Background:

Competitor: LD and extemp, La Salle College HS in Philadelphia, PA (1984-88). Coach since 1988. Presently head coach (PF) at Delbarton School, Morristown NJ.

LD Preferences:

I can "handle" high-speed debates, but have a strong (i.e. voting-issue-level) bias against them on principled grounds. Spluttering and gasping for air while shoving a text at me is simply not meanignful communication. Issues (analysis, evidence) __and__ effective communication count equally to me. I will vote against you if you spread (defined as speaking at a rate that requries you to breathe audibly, slur words or bury your head in a text instead of speaking to me). I will not shout "clear" or any other signal as a warning. Most debaters ignore this (and everything else in this profile) when I reply to their questions about preferences. They do so at their own risk.
 * Speed**

LD lacks prescribed burdens, so it's up to each debater to provide me with a means to weigh out the value conflict ("Why is democracy more significant than national security? According to what measure of value?") and the specific issues in the round ("Why do the risks of nuclear weapons' possession make them morally hazardous?").
 * Decision Rules**

There's no inherent superiority to the value premise/criterion approach. You can do just as well by making topical arguments that link directly to a set of values, rather than shoehorning them into an artificial format that often makes debates rather dull.
 * Value Structure**

30: Exemplary. You are doing a better job than anyone at the tournament. You are a contender to win this tournament or any tournament at which you debate similarly. 29: Fantastic. Very few people could improve on your performance. A definite late outround contender. 28: Good. You did what was needed and made no significant errors. Breaking is likely. 27: Adequate. You debated acceptably. You are on the margin for breaking. 26: Below Average. You should not break with this sort of performance. 25: Bad: You need to improve almost all aspects of your performance. You will likely not reach a .500 record. <25: Offensive or offensively bad. Self-explanatory.
 * Speaker Points**

Kritiks: They are a cop-out for lack of systematic preparation and analysis of the resolution rather than the vanguard of advocacy theory (a guise in which they are often clothed). Moral Skepticism A priori's without a developed justification for a truth testing framework for the resolution Plans, counterplans, plan disads, or any other related policy debate theory. They belong in policy debate, not in LD Saying that obviously horrible things are actually good. For example: "Rape is good."
 * I will not vote for the following arguments:**

If you run these arguments, the most you can hope for is a 25.