Moretti,+Marcus

I debated for four years at Scarsdale High School in New York.

 The main thing that I think makes for good debate is clash, which is when each debater puts out relevant, responsive arguments that answer the specifics of the other’s advocacy. Doing this effectively will give you very high speaker points and will allow me to make a better decision. Debaters who receive high speaker points from me are articulate, funny, and, most importantly, courteous. I give low-point wins more than other judges, apparently. I'll yell "clear" once, because I was once like that, but I'll only do it once. After that, voids on my flow are your fault.

 I don't object to any styles of argumentation on face, unless there's no connection to the ballot.

I don't take seriously the claim that fairness is not a voter. My view is that theory is an essential tool in LD. If the judge didn't care about fairness, then there'd be no in-round check against abusive strategies, which would accelerate the (already last-lap) race to the bottom in abusive argumentation. This is why I will give the proponent of the fairness voter leeway in that debate. But of course, this debate like any other should be evaluated as a competition of claims, which need warrants and can be dropped. So, if the claim “fairness is a voter” does not have a warrant, I will not vote for it. Obversely, if the warranted claim “fairness is not a voter” is dropped, I will assume its truth and ignore my own feelings on the issue.

Debaters run theory too often these days, he shouts, thrashing his cane. My threshold for abuse is high, because recent debaters have inflated it. I vote on theory run by debaters who have been abused. Spend a second thinking about what that word—"abused"—means, and you'll get an idea of what my threshold is. I will dismiss frivolous theory arguments with a modicum of defense against them. But, as I said above, if they're dropped, I have no choice but to vote on them.