Bradstreet,+Haydn


 * Debate Experience:** 1 year high school Lincoln-Douglas (1 NSDA Nationals trip) (no college debate)
 * Current Affiliation:** Harvard University
 * Judging Experience:** minimal judging in high school debate class

I debated for one year in Lincoln-Douglas in the Northern Nevada NSDA district during my senior year; I will be judging for the first time in February 2017 at the Harvard circuit tournament.

I very highly prize a well-structured LD case. I should be able to very clearly determine the links between your contentions, V, and VC. I give much more weight to this aspect of LD than I do to arguments surrounding contentions. Although, of course, to win the round I would like to see at least one standing contention. I also appreciate creativity in interpreting the resolution, as long as you justify it.

I am not at all opposed to kritiks in LD rounds. However, you should make sure that your reasoning behind the kritik is clear to me and to your opponent. A badly-explained kritik can seem extremely esoteric to the point of dodging any clash during the round (depending on the ethical framework you're relying on). //Unless// you explain your argument //extremely well and unambiguously//, pulling a wordy quote from an obscure philosopher to back your kritik will not win you any points in my eyes.

I don't flow during cross-examination (I do listen closely), so any arguments you make there will need to be reiterated in another speech. Cross-ex will affect how I give out speaker points, though.