Miyamoto,+Dan


 * __//Speed//__:** As a former policy debater, I have no problem with speed per se as long as it is clear. However, given the comparatively less evidence-intensive nature of LD, I don't often think it's called for. However, a brisk pace is preferable (this isn't oratory after all) and more engaging for me.


 * //__Framework__//: I evaluate the winner of the round based on the articulated framework that is most compelling in the round**. That is, to say, any framework that is presented and supported (defended) better than the opposing framework is the one that I'll use....including those that don't conform to the conventional Value-Criteria structure. (For the Value-Criteria framework, however, **you should be able to explain how your criteria upholds (captures accesses, is necessary for, is evidence of) your value) and perhaps most importantly, why your value is good**. Additionally, I feel that, all too often, there isn't enough clash on the framework. In order to win the framework, you have to both justify your own and explain why yours is superior. Critiques (or general indictments) by the neg of the resolution (or specific values) are fine with me. **A significant chunk of your speech time ought to be devoted to framework**, at any rate. The rest of your case should be a proof or justification of the resolution given your framework.

__//**Non-framework**//**:**__ I hate it when debaters get bogged down with arguments that have no appreciable impact on the round. Just say "no impact" and move on. Repetition isn't justification, make your warrants explicit. Simple assertions won't get you far. Unless dropped, you can't just extend arguments, you must explain why the argument is still valid given your opponent's response.

//__**Argument Choice**__//: Understandably, cases are not written for specifics judges. However, LD has been and is too Anglo-American-centric in terms of the ideological well it draws upon. As a caveat, don't assume that I necessarily immediately agree or see the merit in any given value, even (perhaps especially) the values of classical liberalism or humanism. (See Framework; justify your values) Additionally, in general, squirrel cases are something to be avoided. While occasionally novel, they're liable to be misunderstood which increases the chance of intervention. Obscure (or semi-obscure) theory and jargon, without adequate explanation, isn't impressive and often will make you more liable to lose. When facing a squirrel case, thinking logically and reading the case will help. Clear, logical responses are usually enough. As always, though, justify.

__**//Burdens//:**__ The Affirmative has to prove the resolution true valid and the Negative has to prove the resolution invalid. However you want to prove this is up to you.


 * __//In-round behavior://__** I will penalize with speaker points or a loss for poor ethos. Be civil, polite, nice but firm, and treat your opponent as your equal...regardless of how you think the round is going or will turn out.