Vishnevsky,+Constantine


 * Constantine "Stan" Vishnevsky **

I am new to judging LD – however I have judged many rounds online and have been trained by an experienced traditional debater. I did extemp when I was in high school and did old school traditional policy for one year. Though I am not ideologically opposed to spreading, I CAN’T FLOW IT. Do not talk faster than conversational in front of me if you want me to catch all of the justifications/impacts of your arguments. If I am not flowing what you are saying, you’re probably going too fast. I view the framework as independent from the rest of the case –it should merely serve as the evaluative mechanism for the round. If you win the VC of utilitarianism, then I’m going to see whose arguments better supports a utilitarian system of ethics. I’m fine with alternitives, but no theory, topicality, plans, DAs, or kritiks or any of the sort. Win the arguments, and then at end of your speech give an overview of why the arguments you won actually matter. Voters aren’t a necessity, but overviews really help. Points are determined by overall clarity and how well you did overall. I will give low point wins, but those are more so for cases in which a debater did a poor job throughout but had one argument that won them the round that might have gone conceded. Clearly extend your contentions and framework along with any case turns –this really help me understand the big picture of the round.
 * Experience **
 * Speed **
 * Value/Value Criterion **
 * Progressive/Policy arguments **
 * How to win with me **
 * Speaker Points **
 * Extensions **

And, explanations are not the same thing as justifications