Joyce,+Shannon


 * Debating Experience**

I debated in-state Minnesota LD in HS for Forest Lake Senior High, graduating in 2007. I went to NFL Nationals out of Central Minnesota my senior year, and I now debate policy at The University of Minnesota on the college debate circuit.


 * LD Judging Paradigm**

Admittedly, my traditional LD background makes me gravitate towards a more standard value/criterion __structure__. I should be told what framework of values (weighing mechanism) I should use to decide which arguments have the largest impact. A value/criterion structure is simply the easiest and most efficient way to go about this, if you feel that you have a different, but concise, method that will accomplish the same goal, then by all means. Though I have opinions on what is the most effective way to debate, __I will ultimately decide the round on what the debaters accept as a legitimate structure and whichever arguments they emphasize will be evaluated first.__ I will not evaluate arguments that the debater failed to communicate effectively to me with a clear impact and warrant. I shouldn't have to do the work for them, in fact- if I did, I would consider it interventionist. Also, philosophical arguments and rhetoric that never get explained by the debater in a way that demonstrates their actual knowledge of the position will not carry as much weight as concise arguments made by debaters who can show full comprehension of their own position. If you can't explain it to me in a way that is understandable, and I simply don't understand your link- I won't vote on it. Make your links clear. As far as __topicality and criticisms__, I will consider them in my vote just as any other argument, but I think that most LD Ks are run incorrectly and that T can be addressed by having definitions at the top of your case. If you have off-case make sure to still link it to some sort of weighing mechanism or to impact it if it is //a priori//. __Disadvantages__ don't make sense to me in LD because the affirmative simply doesn't have a plan and they aren't actually advocating any sort of action- they are just determining if the resolution is a true statement. If you think otherwise- prove me wrong, but I will be fairly critical. And on __speed__, I actually prefer a faster paced round. It allows for more argumentation to take place and for more education. However, though I can flow you, if your opponent cannot I see that as a cheap shot. Wins on speed alone are ridiculous. __Speaker points__- Speaker points are determined completely separate of who actually wins the round. I use them in their literal sense and will award higher points to the debater who speaks the best- the clearest, most efficient, concise debater with good presence who shows understanding of their arguments.