Burnside,+Adam

Coached/judged debate in Minnesota the past 14 years. Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, no Policy, Classic, Parli or anything else.
 * BACKGROUND**

As a general rule, I will listen to anything I understand. And what I understand is value, criteria, evidence, clash, the philosophical basics, and crystallization. But to be more specific:
 * PHILOSOPHY**

__**Value/criteria:**__ I like a traditional value and criterion in the round. Tell me why your value is important and tell me what criterion best allows us in the round to decide between the competing values. Don't tell me your criterion will uphold your value. That sentence violates the definition of the word criterion and will cost you a point in the round. Okay, kidding about the point thing, but seriously let's get back to criteria being what it actually is.

__**Evidence:**__ I like evidence, I truly do. But give me more analysis of your main contentions than just "A card from..." Use that evidence to support what you are contending, just like a lawyer does in a court of law, right? The //evidence// of the bloody glove helped prove OJ Simpson guilty of double homicide. Oh, wait... I also like evidence in subsequent speeches. New evidence that either supports your positions or dislodges your opponents positions.

__**Clash:**__ Give me some clash between yourself and your opponent. Not everything has to clash. If you and your opponent agree on the standard for the round, that's fine. I've seen too many "ships passing in the night" rounds. You need to debate what the other person is saying, and if you do that, we’ll have clash.

__**Philosophy:**__ I love philosophy in LD, but not all resolutions require a lot of it. I understand all the philosophical basics, but if you're going to go off on some new-age, post-modern direction, you'd better be able to do it in a way that is reasonable to me and your opponent. You will not win a round by confusing me or confusing your opponent.

__**Crystallization:**__ Both debaters need to finish telling me what the round has come down to and why they win, based on those points. I've got a lot of info on my flow, now you've got to help me make sense of it all.

__**Final thoughts:**__ Don't be rude to your opponent, you are to debate your opponent, not disparage him or her. Also don't speak faster than your skills of enunciation and diction can handle. If I can hear it and understand it, I'll flow it.