Alderson,+Scott

CROSS-EXAMINATION: I most closely resemble a policy-maker.... caveat being, I DON'T BELIEVE IT JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID IT! I will reject a stupid argument, on face; and will never use my ballot to foster bad debate (eg last year I heard a !AC running transhumanism as a social service.... SHUT UP!).

I rarely vote on T; not because I dislike it, rather that most of you put NO thought into running an appropriate position. If you run T as a simple time-skew, I will be irritated (to say the least). I LOVE procedural debate; if you intend on having a legitimate theory debate. Otherwise, just leave it alone.

I am a believer in advocacy. Conditionality is not likely to go well in a round I am judging. If you run a CP that links to your criticism, and you get called on it; sorry, you don't just get to act like you never said it. Choose your words and your positions wisely!

I am fine with speed (if you are any good). My advice would be to make sure you slow down for taglines. Also, critical literature should be afforded the respect it deserves. If you are going to run Baudrillard, slow down and engage in a real conversation. Claiming "exclusion is bad" while you read 400 words a minute (thereby excluding any lay audience member from the discussion), you will not be pleased with my ballot.

I prefer QUALITY of argumentation. I would much rather hear a round that centers around 2 or 3 well-developed positions than 10 arguments that never move beyond infancy.

You don't have to be a jerk to be a good debator. You can treat each other with dignity, and still disagree. Rudeness, and other general jackassery will be punished!!!!

Any more questions, ask before the round starts.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am an LD purist. If I wanted to hear two competing policy ideas, I would've picked up a CX ballot. I want a legitimate discussion on the moral and ethical ramifications of a decision. PERIOD!

Pay attention to the last paragraph or two from CX statement.

Ask questions if you have more.