Desenberg,+Sofia

I am a novice, lay judge. I was not a debater, but am passionate about logical, intelligent debate and so your ability to construct a smart argument and actively engage and attack the argument of your opponent will win my vote.

TL;DR: Debate is about impact and quality of argument. Convincing, logical, relevant arguments that survive throughout the debate paired with incisive blows to the opponent's value set, arguments, and evidence will gain you a win. Germane empirical evidence is important. Organized argumentation (especially during the construction) is very. very important for my flow.

Performance and speaking:

Respectful debate is important to me. Interrupting and brow beating your opponent is uncalled for, as your win should be earned by the quality and applicability of your arguments. One argument based on one theorist and a failure to successfully attack the arguments of your opponent will win you an automatic lose (unless of course somehow each of your contentions survived until the end of my flow and your opponent made a single weaker argument).

I try to keep up, but if I need you to slow down or speak more clearly I will put my pen down, cross my arms, and look you in the eye to signal that you are going too fast.

Performance is less important to me than the quality of the debate. Being engaged, well researched, quick on your feet, and logical is more important than posture and vocal tone, in my opinion. That being said, please project and speak clearly. Otherwise whatever you say cannot be counted.

Philosophy:

LD is not about the literary merit of your construction. It is about concise and effective argumentation, so don't bother with superfluous sentences and repetition just because you think it sounds nice. The ideas that are being conveyed are what matter. Do not read me a monologue you wrote about the topic, but instead a clear cut, succinct, WELL ORGANIZED map of your construct. This makes it much easier for me to follow your argument and reference it during cross ex's and rebuttals. (That being said, a very large disparity in two debater's syntax and vocabulary will be reflected in a disparity in speaker points).

I stick to the rules, so new arguments introduced in the cross ex or rebuttals will not be counted.

Supporting and defending your contentions within your framework is important, but it is just as important to demonstrate why your framework is more desirable and logical than your opponent's overall values and framework.

I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow, so if I am not able to understand or hear a contention or card in your first constructive, I will most likely not regard in when determining which argument is strongest.

I do value a debater's ability to refute critiques with logic and evidence. Refuting rebuttals to your own argument is just as important as rebutting the arguments of your opponent.

I have a degree in political science and so I am relatively well versed in prominent scholars and philosophers. If I see that you clearly don't understand the nature of the theories you are citing, it will not be to your advantage. However, adopting a theory that you do understand and supporting it with substantial, concrete cards (as opposed to quotes and theoretical cards) will be a boon to your arguments. There is an abundance of empirical data that can be easily accessed by most LDers and a tactful employment of social and political science studies, history, and current events will win you points. Bonus points if this is used to rebut!

I am fair and do not bring my personal preferences into judging. If you mention my favorite theorists, or do better on my favorite section of the debate, I do not care. I judge solely on your ability to construct good arguments, defend them, and deconstruct those of the opponent.