Ebling,+Richard

 **Richard Ebling LD**

 Background: I have been judging L-D occasionally for approximately the past year; I estimate that I have judged between 20 and 35 rounds in local events, (novice & varsity). Most people would probably consider my perspective on LD judging to be “traditional”. Here are some suggestions for communicating effectively with me in your L-D rounds:   I’m a little hard of hearing, so I need you enunciate well, speak at an adequate volume, and speak at a conversational or slightly faster rate (similar tempo to NPR or TV newscasts). I will say “Clear” once if I cannot understand you while you are reading, and if I cannot hear what you’re saying, I’ll say “Louder” (once). I will not vote against you solely for speed, but if I set down my pen and stare at you blankly, that means you have lost me. And I cannot vote for what I cannot follow. Quality will always trump quantity. So speed-speakers may want to do a little block-trimming in advance, or rearrange the sequence to get your best arguments in first.   Debate the resolution. Debate theory will not overcome better analysis of the resolution. Values, criteria, arguments, analysis, and delivery are all key to LD. I want to see value debate, with explicit statements & rationales for your values and criteria. I evaluate criteria first, then look at arguments through that lens.   Please make clear how your value and value criterion provide the more appropriate lens for viewing the voting issues. Other things being equal (clear explanation and support), I have a mild preference for AFF definitions and framework, unless NEG has strong warrants to reject.   Arguments need to be warranted (through evidence and/or your own analysis), and explicitly linked to impacts on some criterion or burden, consistently, throughout the round. Show why these connections are the most important, and should win you the round. Using cards without analysis is not persuasive in itself; cards are supporting evidence, and thus need to actually support something. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it.   I won't make any arguments on debaters' behalf, take anything for granted, or extend any analysis to its logical conclusion for debaters. So please have internal links for your impact stories. Saying that X leads to Y does not mean I will do the work to grant you that scenario. You’ve got to tell me how it happens. In rebuttals, crystallize issues, don't just restate arguments. Do not deliberately misrepresent either your opponent's arguments (e.g., saying that he/she failed to rebut when he/she did), or your own.   I don’t usually know when I’m hearing a ‘canned’ case for the //first// time, but will almost certainly recognize it in every round after that, and will be listening for how you apply the concepts. I like to see that you are able to apply what you are arguing. If you don't understand what you're talking about, chances are I won’t find it persuasive.   I consider myself a flow judge—I look there to evaluate the round. In other words, I look for evidence on my flow to construct and justify my decision. If it's not there, I can't use it. Also, if you're disorganized and jumping around the flow haphazardly I tend to get lost. Since I flow somewhat idiosyncratically; either go in order or be super clear about your roadmap/signposts. Numbering your arguments means I (generally) won't misflow them. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"> <span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"> If I am forced to keep time then I will be focused on that rather than the flow; you probably don't want that. So keep your own time please, excluding prep which I will monitor. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"> <span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"> Feel free to ask specific questions of me before the round begins. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"> <span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"> //(disclaimer: most of the above descriptive phrases were borrowed or adapted from online sources of other judges’ paradigms, too many to reference. But I only included the ones that fit for me).//