Warren,+Elizabeth

====__Affirmative versus Negative burden__: Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true and negative has the burden of clash. This means neg decides how they want to provide that clash (with a traditional case, a kritik, with straight refutation, etc.).====

====__Framework__: Any framework you present is fine (value/criterion, pre-standards, observations, burdens, a priori, etc.). Just make sure it contains all components of an argument. I get really annoyed at debaters who simply state their framework. Your arguments need justification and impact.====

====__Theory/Topicality__: I will vote on theory although, like most judges, I prefer to hear about the resolution. Prove real in-round abuse. I default to reject the argument and reasonability. However, I will consider well-warranted arguments for other ways to evaluate/argue.====

====__Plans, Counterplans, Kritiks, and Disads__: These are fine. Just make sure you have all parts of the argument (kritiks should have a link, impacts, an alternative, and preferably a role of the ballot, counterplans should be mutually exclusive and have a net-benefit, etc.). If your arguments are not fully fleshed out and/or missing an essential component, this is as easy attack against you that may cost you the round (if the attack is justified, impacted and extended).====

====__Impacts/voters/extensions__: Impacts are ESSENTIAL for when I evaluate offense through framework. Many debaters are missing critical analysis as to how they are achieving a standard or how they are fulfilling a burden. Without impacts, I don’t know how your offense functions in the round or how to evaluate it. (Once again, I will accept missing components of an argument as an attack against you). Additionally, you should crystallize the round and tell me clearly what you’re winning. Finally, give extensions and extend each part of the argument (claim, warrant, impact). Providing these things makes a judge’s job much easier.====

====__General comments__: Don’t assume your opponent’s argument is illegitimate just because you’re not used to debating it. “This is LD debate” is not an argument. Engage in the debate. If you give impacts, voters and extensions, I will probably give you high speaker points. If you are unorganized, not giving impacts, voters, or extensions, or you are rude, I will give you low speaker points.====