Pelletier,+Rebecca

I debated value-based LD for 6 years, 2 years in a middle school league, and 4 years in high school, competing in Maine and occasionally on the national circuit.

Currently, I debate in NFA policy-based LD for Saint Anselm. I judge NSDA LD semi-regularly.

Paradigm: I approach every round initially as a traditional judge. I ALWAYS weigh value clash highest in round. Criterion need to be expressed in the contentions, and demonstrate achievement of values clearly.

On the flip side, debaters should be grappling with their opponents framework in full, and committing time and effort to a complete evaluation of their comparative validity and function in the round. Please don't make me do work. Tell me where to vote, tell me why. Make connections explicitly in your speeches so I don't have to do the heavy lifting for you.


 * SPEED: I can handle MOST spreading. As a courtesy, debaters should go no faster than their opponent, and should express needs around speed before the round, as debate is an event centered around communication. Furthermore, your speaks will go down if you're spreading for no good reason. Spreading with unnecessarily lengthy cards, or poorly constructed arguments will knock you down on points. **

Though I'm pretty old school about LD, with my newer background in policy-based debate, I'm open to more progressive arguments if they are made well. The best way to win me over on less-conventional ideas is to make sure you're cleanly extending warrants throughout the round and taking the time to actually engage with the evidence and theory.