Levin,Allison

Allison Levin Affiliations: 2010-2011: The Pembroke Hill School 2005-2010- Marquette High Schol (MO)

__**LD Preferences**__ Debaters who establish a clear decision calculus tend to win my ballot. I start my evaluation there, so make sure this is explicit. I have no preference in terms of whether you use a standard, establish a burden, or just weigh impacts. However, if your opponent establishes a different metric for evaluation, establish why yours comes first. If your framework excludes all of their impacts, make sure you explain that.

There is no argument that I'm categorically opposed to voting on, and I try to intervene as infrequently as possible. Run the arguments with which you are comfortable

I think all arguments are stronger when supported by credible experts in the field. I will prefer evidence to analytics alone. Empirical arguments require evidence, and I will assign very little weight to empirical arguments supported merely by anecdote or personal observation, even if they are dropped. I will not vote for an argument without a warrant. My preference for cards, on balance, also applies to philosophical arguments.

You probably won't win a theory argument from me unless you warrant it and prove actual abuse.

I expect debaters to extend arguments in the rebuttals. Argument comparison is not optional; it is an integral part of an extension. You should extend evidence by citation and by explaining the argument's function in relation to other parts of the debate. In general, I would rather call a card than hear the same paragraph three times. You should spend more time on the argument's function, implications, and interaction than on the original warrant.

I’m comfortable with speed, although it shouldn’t come at the cost of clarity and should actually serve a purpose (e.g. you shouldn’t blaze through a speech and then sit down with lots of time left).