Boennighausen,+Peter

**Experience:** Debated LD for 4 years at BCP, mostly on the CFL/CHSSA/NSDA circuit. **Top-Line:** Basically, treat me as a competent Nationals judge. I debated for four years in high school and I can handle some speed, but any fast knowledge I had by senior year has disappeared almost instantly. Circuit debate is valuable not because you're allowed to talk fast, but because you can run some actually substantive and deep positions. **K/Theory:** For those who still want to run fast and off-case positions, please explain your critical positions and theory arguments. I don't keep with K lit in college. This would be a good time to not spread. If you don't want to spoil the perfection of your beautiful kritik by reading it at an intelligible speed, strike me. **Framework:** I believe normative ethical frameworks distinguish LD from every other type of debate. Warrant your own framework and attack your opponent's. Explain to me why the round should be judged under your framework and how impacts are evaluated under each one. Basic stuff. Feel free to both agree to util, but make that clear in both the top of your case and in the impact analysis. **CX:** Don't waste CX. It's entertaining and useful. Goes for both debaters who sit down and use their three minutes as prep time and cowards who don't actually answer questions. If you commit either of this sins, let alone both, you will be punished with low speaks. **Voters:** Give me some offensive voters that make sense. I'm not going to dive through the flow for you: crystallize, crystallize, crystallize. A cohesive story with concrete examples would be amazing, but that's too much to ask. **Evidence:** Weighing of evidence is important. Don't expect me to ask for evidence after round to determine which card is more legitimate or of greater magnitude: do it in round. A card is not necessary to refute a piece of evidence, a clear analytic refutation is often stronger in my book. **Conclusion:** I'm a lay judge with some experience in fast. As long as your cases are clear and your arguments actually logical and offensive, you'll be fine.