Lee,+Connie

Dartmouth College '18 debated for Clear Brook High School in Friendswood, TX

I currently do parliamentary debate for Dartmouth on the APDA circuit. My debate experience from high school wasn't extensive (some experience each with LD, PF, and policy; mostly did Foreign Extemp), but I'm very familiar with and have judged each of these styles. I debated on the TFA circuit and will mostly be judging there.

You'll most likely be fine doing whatever you already do best. I don't have hard paradigms, and you can win my ballot on any type of argument. So while none of this should significantly change what you run, I'm happy to give as much information as seems relevant about my preferences, and feel free to ask me anything more specific before the round.

I will default to util unless you give me something different.

You should be analyzing and contextualizing your arguments within the round, and I'll be looking for that kind of logical analysis. What you bring to a round as a debater is not just being literate enough to read a card but integrating evidence into a good argument and showing how that functions in the round. I think this is more of a general reminder for good debate than a specific paradigm, but I do find this particularly important. Going along with this, using jargon is fine but it shouldn't replace the explanation of the argument.

I have a relatively high standard for theory. I think it can be interesting and I will reward you for arguing it well, like with any other argument, but I do see theory as being intended for checking abuse. Not to say, then, that it can't be used strategically, but it must still be linked back to why something in the round needs that check, and that link needs to make sense. Bad theory arguments are probably not going to pass that test; like don't run 12 point font.

Speed is fine, but it needs to be coherent. I should be able to distinguish between the words that you're saying. Slow down for tag lines. I'll say "clear" a couple of times if I can't understand you and then drop my pen if the first tactic doesn't make you get clear. Other than that, I don't have many stylistic paradigms. I expect to evaluate the round based on the arguments you make, and I base speaks on how your strategic choices and argumentation contributed to your success in the round. Obviously, how you speak will have perceptive effects on how I understand and am persuaded by your arguments, but I don't tend to independently reward or penalize speaking style.

I don't care about things that don't impact the content of the debate, like how you're dressed or whether you sit or stand, etc. If disclosure and oral critiques are allowed at the tournament, I'll always be happy to give either or both; seems more efficient.