Shea+Strausman


 * Overview**: I'll make this as simple as possible for you guys; run whatever you want, and run it well. I don't enter the debate round with any preconceived notions about how debaters ought to debate stylistically. If you wanna run a really sweet K in front of me, that's fine. If you want to run theory, that's fine. If you want to run 7 minutes of straight ref, that's fine. If you want to debate in a style which most progressives would deem "traditional" than by all means do that as well.


 * Argumentation**: It is absolutely crucial that your argument have a claim, an impact, and (most often overlooked) a warrant. please make sure to include these things if you want me to give the argument any weight in the round. Perhaps even more importantly (and perhaps even more overlooked) please tell me how your argument functions in the round. If you don't tell me where I should be flowing it and why it's important, I probably just wont.


 * Speed:** Speed is fine. I debated for four years and have been judging for almost 4 as well. I can handle you speaking fast, but with a caveat. Speed is not a tool to use indiscriminately.It's only good if it's allowing you to make more arguments, be more in depth, etc. Speed for the sake of speed tends to drive me crazy, and while I am able to flow it, you don't want to make your judge crazy. Also, I would say that speed is generally less important than clarity. If you're speaking at 380 WPM and enunciating fine, and slowing down for tags and author names, that's very much preferable to reading at 250 wpm and slurring your words together, and not slowing down for important sentences and author cites. Please be strategic with your speed, that's all I ask.


 * Theory:** Theory is absolutely fine with me. I'm well versed in most "in vogue" theory arguments in LD debate, and am absolutely willing to vote for them. IF they are justified. What do I mean by that? There really should be a compelling abuse story if you want me to "pull the trigger" on theory. If you're running theory as a time suck, you're sucking your own time as much as your opponents, because I just wont care. Clearly explain to me the abuse, and I will be happy to vote on it. Also, if you're running theory, please make sure you know what you're doing. Don't run some half-assed T shell that your team mate gave to you on the bus ride over and then tell me to vote for it based on "education." I might be tempted to vote against it to educate you about how to properly structure a T argument. Maybe.


 * How I evaluate the round**: It's really simple. I use the standard as established by the in round debate, and I look at arguments impacting back to it. WEIGHTING IS CRITICAL!!!! I can't emphasize that enough. If I had a nickel for every time a debater lost a round in front of me because they did not properly weigh their argument, I wouldn't have to judge debate rounds for spare change. DO IT. The important thing here is that I really don't care what the method of standard is. You can use a traditional V/VC model, it can be theory, it could be a K, it could be a syllogism. The important thing to remember is to tell me what I'm looking to, and why it means I sign the ballot with your name.

Good luck.